Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30945
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, K.K. Ramakrishnan, JJ
Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, Madurai District. – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.399 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For the Respondents: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor
Habeas Corpus petition disposed directing production of detenue before Magistrate for voluntary statement verification.
Headnote:The petition under Article 226 seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the missing wife/detenue and set her at liberty, following a 'woman missing' FIR after her sudden disappearance post-marriage registration. Court examined marriage registration, family non-disclosure, police investigation tracing her to Mumbai, and her letter expressing cooperation with inquiry. Findings confirm ongoing investigation and need for judicial verification of her statement. Issues framed around voluntariness of detenue's absence and family pressure claims versus her stated intent to cooperate. Ratio decidendi emphasizes directing production before Magistrate for statement recording to ascertain free will, balancing petitioner's concerns with investigative needs. Petition disposed with direction to produce detenue before Judicial Magistrate, Melur, for statement and further proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. husband files hcp for missing wife post-marriage. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. investigation traces detenue; voluntariness disputed. (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. direct production before magistrate for statement. (Para 7 , 8) |
(Order of the Court was made by N. ANAND VENKATESH,J.)
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the husband for a direction to the first respondent to produce the detenue, who is his wife and to set her at liberty.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he married the detenue on
25.04.2025 and the marriage was also registered before the Sub-Registrar, Dindigul. Since the marriage was not informed to both families, the petitioner and the detenue continued to live with their respective families. All of a sudden, the whereabouts of the detenue were not known from 07.03.2026. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 11.03.2026, based on which, a “woman missing” FIR came to be registered in Crime No.131 of
2026, dated 11.03.2026.
4. The further case of the petitioner is that the detenue has been forcibly taken to Mumbai and is being kept in the house of the third respondent. It is under these circumstances, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed before this Court.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that, in the course of investigation, the whereabouts of the detenue was ascertained at Mumbai. When the same was informed to the detenue, she gave a letter stating that she would work out her remedy and that, as and when she is summoned for enquiry, she will cooperate with the same. A copy of the said letter has also been placed before this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenue is not acting independently and is being pressurised by her family members.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on either side, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to produce the detenue before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. On the date of such production, the petitioner shall be informed. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the detenue and proceed further in accordance with law.
8. This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
