R.Rajadurai v. The Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2021 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN H.C.P.No.490 of 2021 R.Rajadurai ... Petitioner versus 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Irumbulikurichi Police Station, Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District.
3.Latha 4.Anbumani 5.Suresh Kumar ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 herein to secure the body of the detenue by name K.Oviya, D/o.Karuppaiyan, W/o.Rajadurai, aged about 20 years from the illegal custody of the respondents 3 to 5 and produce her before this Court for the entrustment of her with the petitioner.
For Petitioner :
Mr.N.S.Suganthan For Respondents :
Mrs.P.Kritika Kamal, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
(Order of this Court was made by T.RAJA,J.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to secure the body of the detenue, by name K.Oviya, D/o.Karuppaiyan, W/o.Rajadurai, aged about 20 years from the illegal custody of respondents 3 to 5 and produce her before this Court.
2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the detenue had love affairs from the year 2017 and that the petitioner, who belonged to Scheduled Caste community, has completed B.Sc. Chemistry in Raja Serfoji College (Autonomous), Tanjore and that the detenue, who belonged to Most Backward Caste Community, has been perusing her B.A. Tamil in Women's Government College, Veppur. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the detenue and the petitioner got married on 13.09.2019 in Bramhapureeshwarar Temple, Thirupattur against the wish of the parents and relatives of the detenue. After knowing the objections raised by the detenue's family members, they lived separately.
While so, the third respondent, being the mother of the detenue and respondents 4 and 5, being the brothers of the third respondent, ignoring the facts that the marriage had already been solemnized between the detenue and the petitioner and due to which, the detenue became pregnant, contracted the second marriage between the detenue and the fourth respondent, which is un-justifiable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since they were not able to go safely to the Sub Registrar to register their marriage, after solemnisation of marriage between them at Bramhapureeshwarar Temple, Thirupattur, there was no proof for marriage.
Taking advantage of the non-registration of the marriage, the detenue's family members have forced the detenue to leave the petitioner and finally contracted the second marriage with the fourth respondent illegally. Therefore, the petitioner has been advised to come to this Court.
3.Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that there was no proof of marriage between the petitioner and the detenue that goes without saying that there was no marriage between them, whereas, there is a proof of marriage between the detenue and the fourth respondent and that too, the same was properly arranged by the family members of the detenue. To support her submission, she has shown the marriage invitation through her cell phone.
4.A perusal of the marriage invitation shows that the marriage has been solemnized on 10.11.2019 between the detenue and the fourth respondent. Therefore, when there is a proof of marriage between the detenue and the fourth respondent, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court to work out their remedy, if there was a proof of marriage between the petitioner and the detenue that said to have taken place earlier to the subsequent marriage. Without resorting to the said legal remedy, the petitioner has wrongly come to this Court by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus. Hence, this petition is not maintainable. 5.Secondly, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 is able to satisfy us by placing on record
the marriage invitation, which goes without saying that the detenue has agreed for the marriage based on the arrangement made by the family members of the detenue and the fourth respondent. It is not the case that the detenue has come to this Court seeking any remedy because she has married the fourth respondent now. Therefore, considering the fact that there was no marriage proof placed by the petitioner, whereas the marriage solemnized between the detenue and the fourth respondent, has been fully supported by the marriage invitation shown to us, we are unable to find any merits in this petition. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vga To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Irumbulikurichi Police Station, Sendurai Taluk, Ariyalur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.N.S.Suganthan, Advocate, S.R.No. 22643 H.C.P.No.490 of 2021 NR(CO) GN(04/05/2021)