The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court will dismiss a petition for a writ of habeas corpus if it finds that the alleged detainee is not illegally held but has voluntarily placed themselves in a certain situation, as evidenced by their own statement and actions.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondent to produce the petitioner''s mother Sheeba aged about 73 years illegally detained by the 4th respondent herein and set her at liberty.)

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.,

1. The petitioner has filed this petition on the apprehension that her mother namely, ''Ms.Sheeba'' [hereinafter ''absentee'' for the sake of convenience and clarity] aged about 73 years is in illegal detention at the hands of the fourth respondent.

2. In the affidavit, it is averred that the petitioner had earlier instituted a civil suit against her husband on behalf of her son for alienating joint family property. Since the petitioner is working in Australia, she has given power of attorney to the absentee to conduct the case on her behalf. Thereafter, the brother of the petitioner''s husband threatened the petitioner and the absentee. A complaint was lodged with the Inspector of Police, Kilpauk on 14.02.2022 but no FIR has been registered. Thereafter, an anonymous complaint has been addressed to Australian Human Rights Commission and Department of Social Services which was received by the petitioner alleging that she had ill-treated the absentee and this complaint was at the instance of her husband''s brother. On 17.02.2023, the absentee was found missing. The absentee informed that she is proceeding to a Church at Arakkonam but she had not reached the church and later a complaint was lodged with the third respondent police through on-line on 25.02.2023. Thereafter, on 01.03.2023, the fourth respondent sent a letter making false allegations for which appropriate steps have been taken to refute the same. Further, the learned counsel reiterates that the letter of the fourth respondent would prove that the absentee is in illegal custody and her life is under threat.

3. Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 (official respondents) produced a case diary, in which, statement of the absentee recorded on 16.03.2023 running to four pages is available. On a perusal of the same, in penultimate page, it is recorded as follows :

“LANGUAGE”

4. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also produced a video recording of the absentee.

5. It is seen from the statement as well as video recording, that the absentee is not in illegal custody and she being a retired school teacher knowing very well about the happenings, voluntarily got admitted in the old age home. Hence, this Court finds that it is not a case of illegal detention or illegal custody.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that address of the old age home is not known to the petitioner.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor shall furnish the address of the old age home to the learned counsel for the petitioner in which the absentee is staying.8. In view of the above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs.