A.Ramesh, S/O.Arumugam, v. The Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 04.05.2018 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM & THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM H.C.P.No.614 of 2018 A.Ramesh ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State rep. by The Superintendent of Police Vellore 2.The Inspector of Police Sipcot Police Station 3.R.Padmanabhan 4.Kantha .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce the body of the detenue R.Levena, daughter of A.Ramesh, aged about 21 years, now detained under the custody of the 3rd and 4th respondents and set the detenue at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sairaman For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran Govt. Advocate.

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The relief sought for in this Habeas Corpus Petition is to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenue Smt.Levena, D/o.A.Ramesh, aged about 21 years. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the father of the detenue and the detenue, while studying M.A in AAA College in Walajapet, left the parents house on 16.03.2018. The petitioner searched his

daughter in and around places and thereafter, lodged a complaint with the respondent police. The respondent commenced the investigation and found that the detenue, namely Smt.Levena already married one Mr.R.Padmanabhan, who is employed as Naick in Indian Army and presently working in New Delhi.

3. The respondent police produced both the detenue as well as the third respondent before this Court. We have examined both the detenue as well as the third respondent and also the writ petitioner. The detenue Smt.Levena in unambiguous terms expressed her willingness to go along with the third respondent. Further, she informed us that she had married the third respondent on 26.02.2018 and her Date of Birth even as per the school records is 10.07.1996. Thus, she married the third respondent at the age of 22 years and therefore, she is willing to live with the third respondent.

Father of the detenue/petitioner informed us that the marriage solemnized between the the daughter of the petitioner and the third respondent is in prohibited relationship and therefore, this Court should interfere.

4. As far as the Habeas Corpus Petition is concerned, these issues cannot be adjudicated. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court of law for the purpose of redressing his grievances in this regard. However, the detenue had been produced before this Court. Now the detenue has expressed her willingness to live along with the third respondent. As the detenue is a major and she has expressed her willingness to live along with the third respondent, we have no option, but to set her at liberty.

Accordingly, the detenue is set at liberty and the present Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar gpa To

1. The Superintendent of Police Vellore

2.The Inspector of Police Sipcot Police Station 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

H.C.P.No.614 of 2018 RK(CO) SP(16/05/2018)