Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, N.A NAND VENKATESH, JJ.
Santhi Marimuthu - Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam & Others - Respondents
H.C.P.No.247 of 2023
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Habeas Corpus - Marriage - The court found that the missing daughter, who was a major, had married the third respondent and expressed her willingness to go with him, thus concluding that it was not a case of illegal detention or custody, leading to the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce the missing daughter before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the missing daughter had married the third respondent and expressed her willingness to go with him, concluding that it was not a case of illegal detention or custody.
Issues: The main issue was whether the missing daughter was illegally detained or in illegal custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that as the missing daughter was a major and had willingly married the third respondent, it was not a case of illegal detention or custody, and therefore, a habeas corpus legal drill was not appropriate.
Final Decision: The habeas corpus petition was disposed of as closed.
JUDGMENT
(Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to to direct the 1st respondent to produce the missing daughter of the petitioner Ms.Mohanapriya, aged 19 years before this Hon''ble Court and set her at liberty.)
M. Sundar, J.
This order will now dispose of the captioned matter.
2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 02.03.2023 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
3. Aforementioned earlier proceedings is telltale qua the crux of the matter as well as the trajectory the matter has taken in being listed today. To be noted, as regards listing today, adverting to paragraph No.5 of the previous proceedings, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, instructed by Mr.P.Palanivel (SI), Naagoor Police Station, mentioned the matter saying that the absentee has been located.
4. The matter was listed at the request of both sides, Mr.C.Saikrishna, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, petitioner, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 (official respondents), Mr.M.Govindarajan, learned counsel for the third respondent and third respondent are before us.
5. To be noted, though a counsel (Mr.M.Praveen Kumar) represented (in the previous listing) on instructions from the respondents 4 and 5 this learned counsel or any one representing learned counsel is not before us. It is further to be noted that no one was before us both in the first call (Forenoon) and second call (Afternoon). Be that as it may, we had a short interaction with the absentee, third respondent and petitioner in that order one after the other. It comes to light that the absentee and third respondent are married, the date of marriage is 05.12.2022 and we are informed that the marriage was solemnized at Kanur Pillaiyar Temple, Nagapattinam District.
6. At the request of the petitioner, there was an interaction between the petitioner and the absentee with adequate privacy albeit in Court Hall. This was during the lunch session. Post lunch session, the position is no different i.e., absentee said that she is married to third respondent and that she would go with the third respondent. Absentee is a major. Third respondent is also a major.
7. In the light of the narrative thus far, as it is not a case of illegal detention or illegal custody, we deem it appropriate to not to embark upon a habeas corpus legal drill. This means curtains are down on the captioned HCP.
8. The sequitur is, captioned HCP is disposed of as closed.
The court's decision was based on the principle that in cases of habeas corpus, the determination of illegal detention or custody is crucial, and in this case, the missing daughter's marriage and wil....
The main legal point established is that the absence of illegal detention or custody is crucial in determining the applicability of a Habeas Corpus Petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to dispose of a Habeas Corpus Petition after the subject of the petition is located and brought before the court, and adequat....
The absence of illegal detention is crucial in determining the necessity of a Habeas Corpus legal drill under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The legal principle established is that the court will consider the age and marital status of the individual in habeas corpus cases to determine the presence of illegal detention or unlawful custody.
The main legal point established is that the court will not issue a writ of habeas corpus if the missing person is found to have voluntarily left and not illegally detained.
Adult daughter's autonomy in consensual relationship and independent living upheld in habeas corpus petition.
Preservation of rights of all concerned parties in a missing person case
A habeas corpus petition can only be entertained if there is a prima facie case of illegal detention or a strong and reliable suspicion of such illegal detention.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
