E.Meera, F/A 42 Years, v. The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 04.10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.1293 of 2018 E.Meera, D/o.P.Ekambaram.
...Petitioner
-vs1.The Inspector of Police, V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai.
2.V.Venkatesh, S/o.V.Varadharajan.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the first respondent Police to produce the body or person of the detenue, Minor.Tharshita, female, aged about nine years, before this Hon'ble Court, and handover to the petitioner. For Petitioner :: Mr.Arun Anbumani For 1st Respondent :: Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor For 2nd Respondent :: Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for Mr.D.Parventhan * * * * *
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.] The petitioner, who is the mother of the Minor Daughter "Tharshita" aged about nine years has filed the above Habeas Corpus Petition stating that, on 14.06.2018, she received a text message from the 2nd respondent i.e. her husband, that the mother of the 2nd respondent has expired and wanted the Minor Daughter Tharshita to attend the funeral ceremony. The petitioner agreed for the same and came down to Chennai along with her Minor Daughter Tharshita and stayed at her father's residence. 2.The petitioner and her husband/2nd respondent was met in a common place at Villivakkam. The 2nd respondent took the Minor
Daughter Tharshita along with him by promising that he would entrust her back to the petitioner. After the funeral of his mother, when the 2nd respondent failed to do so, the petitioner contacted the 2nd respondent to know about the Minor daughter Tharshita. The 2nd respondent avoided the calls of the petitioner and he is refused to hand over the Minor daughter Tharshita back to her custody.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Minor Daughter Tharshita has stayed along with petitioner right from her birth and now she had been illegally detained by the 2nd respondent against her daughter's wishes and interest and submitted that, the minor daughter Tharshita is aged about nine years and she has to be under the mother's care and custody. During this crucial stage of life, further the Minor Daughter needs mother's care and love to grow up as a responsible adult. 4.Since the 2nd respondent was refusing to handover the Minor Daughter Tharshita back to the petitioner, the petitioner lodged a complaint on 01.07.2018 before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent issued a C.S.R. bearing No.529 of 2018, till now no steps was taken by the 1st respondent.
Hence, the petitioner had filed a petition seeking to entrust the custody of the child and this Court by order dated 16.07.2018 had entrusted the custody of the child with the mother for a period of one week and permitted the 2nd respondent to see the child giving visiting rights by meeting the child by the residence of the mother and referred to Mediation Centre.
5.The petitioner and the 2nd respondent and the Minor Daughter Tharshita were referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras. The Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras by its report dated 05.09.2018 stated that "No agreement was reached", so the mediation failed and the matter was remitted back to this Court. 6.Today i.e. on 04.10.2018, when the case was taken up for hearing, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent present, both agreed that the minor daughter Tharshita would be in the custody of the petitioner from Monday to Thursday and in custody of the 2nd respondent from Friday to Sunday. It was agreed that the child custody and the visitation rights would be chalked down before the appropriate forum and the above arrangement would be followed till such time.
Taking into consideration of the undertaking given by both petitioner and the 2nd respondent reminding the parents to take paramount interest of the child, not to infuse venom in the mind of the Minor Daughter Tharshita about each other. Recording this undertaking, this petition is closed.
7.In view of the above undertaking, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Vv2 Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Inspector of Police, V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
KR/24/10/18 H.C.P.No.1293 of 2018