2026:MHC:1197 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN HCP No. 404 of 2026 Perumal S/o.Raji Alias Munusamy, Periyamuthur Village, Sundekuppam Post, Krishnagiri Taluk and District, Krishnagiri.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. State Rep by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

2. Sathish Alias Mari S/o.Padavattan, Nekkundhi Village, Agraharam Post, Krishnagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

3. Dr.A.Arun Thamburaj, IAS, Mission Director, National Health Mission, 359, Anna Salai, 5^th Floor, DMS Annex Building, DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 006.

4. The Director, Children Welfare and Special Services Department, DMS, Teynampet, Chennai.

5. The Director, Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services, DMS, Teynampet, Chennai.

6. The Director, Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, DMS, Teynampet, Chennai.

(R3 to R6 impleaded vide this order)

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS or any other appropriate order or direction directing the 1st respondent to produce the petitioner’s minor daughter namely Gowri Shankari, aged 17 years before this Hon’ble Court and hand over her custody to the petitioner and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.A.Balamurugan B.Gopinath For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted By Mr. M. Sylvester John For R1 Ms.Sneha – R3 to R6

Order

(Per Bench)

The father of the detenu, a minor girl aged 17 years and 6 months, has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition, alleging that she is in illegal detention of the

2^nd respondent (R2) herein.

2. When the matter was earlier heard on 04.03.2026, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the girl had been secured and since she refused to go with her parents, she had been handed over to the Vallalar Home at Dharmapuri (Home) and is presently residing there. He also submitted that the girl is pregnant.

3. In order to satisfy ourselves as to whether the detenu is staying at the Home voluntarily, we directed the respondent to produce her today. We also directed the petitioner to appear in person.

4. Accordingly, today, the detenu was produced and when we made enquires with her, she would state that she is in a love affair with the 2^nd respondent and their relationship is consensual. They (R2 and detenu) have married each other with the full support of R2’s family.

5. She states that R2 is now employed in Orissa and she is voluntarily staying in the Home as she does not want to go with the petitioner (her father) or her mother, but wishes to continue to stay at Vallalar Home, Dharmapuri. She is pregnant and says that she has the full support of R2 and his family to support herself and the child, once born.

6. Since the detenu is a minor, we suggested to the detenu that she may undergo a counselling session, for which she readily agreed. The District Collector, Dharmapuri, is directed to nominate a professional counsellor to counsel the detenu forthwith.

7. Section 97 of the Cr PC provides for a writ of Habeas Corpus in the case of ‘any person’ who has been illegally detained. In the case of a detenu over 18 years, the determination of illegal detention is based on whether the detention is voluntary or otherwise.

8. In the alternate, meaning in the case of a detenue, who is less than the age of majority, legal custody should vest in the parent/guardian. There are however situations where the agency of the detenue becomes relevant in order to enable the Court to come to a conclusion as to whether the detention is contrary to or at the volition of the detenue. This is one such case.

9. Most of the questions that arise in this case, such as the legitimacy of marriage of a minor, agency of a