J U D G M E N T

Jayachandran, J.

1. The petitioner, who hails from Chennai, is the mother of the alleged detenu, aged 8 years. Respondents 1 and 2 are the sister and mother, respectively of the petitioner, who allegedly have detained the detenu illegally. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus mandating production of the alleged detenu before this Court and to release him to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner would aver that, in her wedlock with her husband, Ganesh Pandyan, two children were born. The elder daughter is aged 15 years and is studying in the 10th standard at Chennai. When the younger son was aged 1 year, the second respondent/grandmother took him to take care of the child until he attains the age of joining school. Petitioner and her husband used to make frequent visits to the second respondent's house. However, to the petitioner's surprise, the child was admitted in school at the residential place of the second respondent, namely Palakkad. Respondents 1 and 2 are now refusing to give back the child to the petitioner. They also do not permit her to visit the child. When the petitioner made an attempt to take the child, she was threatened by local goons. The first respondent is a divorcée and a lady of loose morals. Petitioner apprehends that, her child will be misused by the first respondent. The second respondent is aged 72 years and not having good health to take care of the child. Ext.P4 complaint was preferred before the 3rd respondent police officer, however of no consequence. Therefore, Ext.P5 complaint was preferred before the 4th respondent/Dy.S.P., which also did not evoke any response. Petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Chennai as HCP 1526/2022, which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn, since, according to the petitioner, the High Court opined that the petitioner should approach the jurisdictional High Court at Kerala. On such premise, petitioner seeks the relief above referred.

3. Heard Sri.Nahas H., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C. Bineesh, learned Public Prosecutor.

Perused the records.

4. Having bestowed our attention to the matter, we cannot find any illegal detention of the detenue in the hands of respondents 1 and 2. We notice that the alleged detenue was initially handed over to the second respondent by the petitioner herself, which according to her was pursuant to a request on the part of the second respondent. The understanding was that the child will be brought up and taken care of by the second respondent, until he attains the age for joining the school. Obviously, the relationship between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 has got estranged now, wherefore, she seeks the child to be handed over back to the petitioner. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that, respondents 1 and 2 are none other than the sister and mother respectively of the petitioner. In as much as the alleged detenue was voluntarily given by the petitioner to the second respondent, we cannot find that the child has been illegally detained, in the absence of which, a Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot issue.

5. In the circumstance, this Writ Petition is dismissed in limine, however, reserving the petitioner's right to seek appropriate remedy for custody of the child before the Family Court concerned.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN

JUDGE Sbna/

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 809/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS ExhibitP1 THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.

ExhibitP2 BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONERS SON MR,G.PRASANNA VINAYAK .

ExhibitP3 TRAIN TICKET DATED 16/01/2020 ExhibitP4 COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14/08/2022 ExhibitP5 COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18/08/2022 ExhibitP6 COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 18/08/2022 ExhibitP7 RATION CARD OF THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND.

ExhibitP8 ADHAR CARD OF G.PRASANNA VINAYAK ExhibitP9 ADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER ExhibitP10 THE ORDER OF THE HCP 1526/2022