IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JJ.
Saran - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Officer, Chennai & Others - Respondent
H.C.P.No. 1538 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2022
Habeas Corpus - Marriage Dispute - Mohammed Law - Civil Contract - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - S.V.Mini Party Hall, Marriage S.No.TMR/Royapuram/527/2002 - Physiotherapy (BPT) course - Sunni marriage - Chief Imam - Khatheeb - Mehr (dower) - Jamaath Register
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition to produce his wife from illegal custody, claiming they had a valid marriage. The detenue, however, expressed her willingness to stay with her parents to complete her studies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detenue was not in illegal custody and permitted her to stay with her parents. The court also addressed the validity of the marriage under Mohammed Law and civil contract principles.
Issues: Validity of the marriage, detenue's willingness to stay with her parents, and the petitioner's request to speak to his wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of Habeas Corpus Petition and the importance of verifying the age of the person in custody. It also discussed the requirements for a valid Sunni marriage under Mohammed Law and civil contract principles.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was closed as the detenue was found not to be in illegal custody.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 2nd Respondent police to produce the detenue namely Faseelah Banu wife of Saran aged 21 years to this Court from illegal custody of 3rd Respondent and set her at liberty.)S. Vaidyanathan. J. & A.D. Jagadish Chandira. J.
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed to direct the 2nd Respondent police to produce the detenue namely Faseelah Banu wife of Saran aged 21 years to this Court from illegal custody of 3rd Respondent and set her at liberty.
2. The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
(i) The Petitioner had love affair with one Faseelah Banu for the past 4 years and after coming to know of the same, the 3rd Respondent who is the father of the detenue attempted to arrange marriage for the detenue. Thereafter the petitioner informed about the same to his father and when his father approached the 3rd Respondent and requested to arrange marriage for the Petitioner and the detenue, he refused to accept the marriage proposal mooted out by the petitioner's father and thereafter detained the detenue in her house and restricted her to contact the petitioner. It is further stated that the detenue escaped and came to the house of the petitioner and requested to conduct the marriage immediately and based on her request, in the presence of the parents of the petitioner, marriage was performed and registered at the Sub-Registrar's Office at Royapuram vide Marriage S.No.TMR/Royapuram/527/2002. After marriage the Petitioner advised her to go to her parents' house for the purpose of getting consent from them for their marriage. When the detenue informed her marriage with the petitioner to the 3rd Respondent, she was beaten severely. It is also stated that subsequently, on 07.05.2022, the detenue left her parents' house and joined the petitioner and both of them went to the petitioner's relative's house at Dindukal. Thereafter, based on the complaint given by the 3rd respondent, Police officials from the Neelankarai police station contacted the petitioner and asked him to appear before the Neelankarai Police Station along with his wife / the detenue.
(ii) On 09.05.2022, the Petitioner appeared before the Neelankarai Police along with the detenue. In the Police Station, the 3rd Respondent also appeared and accepted the marriage. Thereafter on 12.06.2022, the 3rd Respondent informed the detenue that her mother is seriously ill and admitted in K.L.Hospital and requested her to come immediately and see her mother. Believing the same, the petitioner and the detenue went to the hospital and the 3rd Respondent spoke to them in a kind manner and requested the detenue to stay with them to take care of her mother in the hospital. Acceding to the request of R3, the petitioner left the detenue in the hospital and thereafter. she came back on 12.07.2022.
(iii) While so, on 18.07.2022, the mother of the detenue came to his house and informed that they want to conduct marriage in a grand manner by calling all the relatives and believing her words he sent his wife to her parental home. Thereafter from the next day her phone was switched off and when he went to his in-laws home, he did not find the detenue. Suspecting danger to life and liberty of his wife, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 26.07.2022 before the 2nd Respondent police. But the 2nd Respondent police neither assigned any CSR number nor conducted any enquiry. Aggrieved over the same, the present Petition came to be filed.
2(a). This Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to produce the detenue and her parents before this Court through the respondent police.
3. Today, the detenue along with her parents appeared before this Court and the Petitioner along with his father also appeared in person.
4. On enquiry with the detenue, she has deposed that she is pursuing her Physiotherapy (BPT) course a
AI
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of Habeas Corpus Petition and the requirements for a valid marriage under Mohammed Law and civil contract principles.
Writ of Habeas corpus – Maintainability – Married daughter staying with parents – Locus standi of father in law – Grievance of that wife staying at her parents place only husband has remedy to approa....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.