O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by B.PUGALENDHI, J.]

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the husband and father of the detenus respectively for a direction to produce the detenues namely, Lawanya aged about 23 years and Shana aged about 4 years before this Court and set them at liberty.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a Welder and used to travel to various places in respect of his work. While so, after completion of his work on 02.03.2021 when he contacted his wife Lawanya, her mobile was switched off. When he returned home, his wife and their daughter were found missing. Therefore, he sent a complaint to the respondent Police on 09.03.2021 and thereafter, he has filed this habeas corpus petition.

3.When the matter is taken up for hearing today Mr.K.K.Ramakrishanan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced a copy of the order passed in H.C.P(MD)No.262 of 2021, which was filed by one Arumugam, the father of the detenue Lawanya seeking the very same relief. In that case, the detenues were produced and the detenue Lawanya informed this Court that she was physically and mentally harassed by her husband / the petitioner herein and hence, she went to Chennai and was staying in a women's hostel. Based on her statement that petition was closed by this Court on 09.02.2021.

4.The present habeas corpus petition is filed by the husband, for the very same relief sought for in H.C.P(MD)No.262 of 2021, which was filed by the father of the detenue Lawanya.

5.This Court is of the opinion that whether such a habeas corpus petition is maintainable. In this regard it would be relevant to refer to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sameena Vs The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal and another [H.C.P(MD) No.737 of 2017, decided on 22.06.2018], wherein this Court regarding the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition, by referring a number of decisions, has dealt with the issue and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

“3.The question arises whether the present Habeas Corpus Petition shall be maintained or not. On a plain reading of the affidavit filed in support of the present Habeas Corpus Petition, we are unable to find any substantial ground to arrive at a conclusion that the detenu is in illegal detention. In the absence of any such illegal detention or at least a suspicion, based on certain materials, we are not inclined to consider the present Habeas Corpus Petition. It is a condition precedent that the petitioner should establish an illegal detention or at least a reliable strong suspicion and the man/woman missing cannot be brought in the Habeas Corpus Petition.

4.Considering the scope of the Habeas Corpus Petition under the Constitution, this Court has to consider whether the ingredients, which are all requisites for entertaining the Habeas Corpus Petition is fulfilled or not. In the present case on hand, even there is no allegation or averment in respect of any such illegal detention or suspicion raised by the Petitioner. Further, the police investigation reveals that the detenu is having the habit of eloping with various women. Such being the result of the investigation, we are of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served by keeping the present Habeas Corpus Petition pending and the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Petition has been considered by this Court and the legal position is enumerated in W.P.No.2309 of 2016 and the relevant paragraphs of the same are extracted hereunder:

13.This Court is frequently witnessing that Man/Women Missing cases are converted as Habeas Corpus petitions. Two aspects are to be considered, fundamental right of a citizen for free movement is also a fundamental right, enshrined under the Constitution of India. Personal liberty is also a fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. It is to be co-related that personal liberty must have a cogent and harmonious understanding in respect of the freedom to move anywher