SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33315

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ
P.Manimegalai – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai – Respondent
H.C.P.(MD)No.420 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Veerakumar
For the Respondents: Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

In habeas corpus for adult missing daughter, direct production before magistrate to record statement and ascertain her wishes.

Headnote:Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of Habeas Corpus to produce 19-year-old daughter reported missing after leaving for college. FIR registered for woman missing. Court directed production before magistrate on finding she left due to unwillingness to marry and was in a relationship. Issues framed on production and liberty. Ratio: Produce detenue before Judicial Magistrate for statement recording to ascertain her wishes. Petition disposed directing magistrate to proceed in accordance with law.

Table of Content
1. habeas corpus petition for production of adult daughter. (Para 1 , 2)
2. facts of missing daughter and police findings. (Para 3 , 4)
3. direct production before magistrate for statement. (Para 6)

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to produce the petitioner's daughter, who is aged about 19 years and to set her at liberty.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The case of the petitioner is that her daughter was married to one Sonaiyan, who is the brother of the petitioner on 28.01.2026. The petitioner's daughter was studying in the College and she left for the College on 18.03.2026, but, however, she did not return back home in the evening. In spite of the best efforts, the whereabouts of the petitioner's daughter was not able to be ascertained. Hence, a complaint was given before the second respondent on 19.03.2026. Based on which, a woman missing FIR was registered in Crime No.49 of 2026. Since no effective steps were taken by the Police, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.

4. When the matter came up for hearing on 01.04.2026, this Court directed the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to take instructions. 5. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the preliminary enquiry made by the second respondent brought to light the fact that the detenue was not interested in marrying the petitioner's brother. Therefore, she has gone out of the house and she is having a relationship with one Narayanan.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made on either side, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to produce the detenue before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Singampunari. On such production, the petitioner shall be put on notice. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the detenue and proceed further in accordance with law.

7. This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top