Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 29459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
Saravanakumar – Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.427 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.J.Mohamed Ibrahim
For the Respondents: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Habeas Corpus does not permit interference in a major's voluntary relationship choices.
Headnote:The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the detenue, aged 20, who went missing from her workplace, and to set her at liberty, alleging police inaction in registering an FIR. The court ascertained the detenue's statement that she is in a relationship with a boy below marriageable age and refuses to return to the petitioner due to his prior disavowal. The court found the detenue to be a major with clear intent. Issues framed pertain to the scope of Habeas Corpus jurisdiction over a major's personal relationships. The ratio decidendi holds that courts cannot interfere in a major's voluntary relationships as it exceeds Habeas Corpus jurisdiction. The petition is disposed of recording the detenue's stand.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. no jurisdiction over major's personal relationships. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. petition disposed recording detenue's stand. (Para 6) |
(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)
This petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the father of the detenue to produce the person or body of the detenue and to set her at liberty.
2. The case of the petitioner is that his daughter went missing from
21.03.2026 from her work place and thereafter, her whereabouts were not able to be ascertained. A complaint was given in this regard with the second respondent and in spite of the same, the second respondent has not even registered an FIR and had not taken efforts to trace the detenue. It is under these circumstances, the present petition came to be filed before this Court.
3. At the time of hearing, the detenue was produced before this Court.
We ascertained from her that her date of birth is 28.06.2005 and that she has developed a relationship with the boy, namely, Kumaran, who was also present at the time of hearing. She stated that the said Kumaran is yet to reach the marriage-able age of 21 years and after he reaches that age, she will marry the said Kumaran. She further stated that presently she is residing in the house of the aunt of the said Kumaran. When we specifically put a question to her as to whether she can go and stay with the petitioner for some time, she stated that the petitioner came to the police station after giving a complaint and had given in writing that he is no longer interested in having a relationship with the detenue. The detenue, therefore, stated that she is not willing to go along with the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the boy with whom the detenue has relationship, has not even reached the legal marriage-able age and due to some pressure, the detenue is continuing to live with the boy.
5. In our considered view, the detenue is a major and she was very clear in her thoughts and expression and therefore, we cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of her relationship with the boy. This is beyond the jurisdiction conferred in a Habeas Corpus Petition.
6. Therefore, except recording the stand taken by the detenue, no further orders can be passed in this petition.
7. This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
