Balaji v. The Superintendent Of Police North
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Balaji ..
Petitioner Vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police (North), Office of the Superintendent of Police, Puducherry.
2.The Inspector of Police, Lawspet Police Station, Puducherry.
3.Murugaiyan .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the second respondent to produce the petitioner's wife namely XXX, daughter of Murugaiyan, aged about 21 years before this Court and set her at liberty.
Page Nos.1/8
For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Vijayaragavan For Respondents :
Mr.K.S.Mohandass Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) assisted by Ms.N.Danalatchoomy
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] This order will now dispose of the captioned matter. 2.
This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 17.04.2023 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: Page Nos.2/8
Page Nos.3/8
3.
It is made clear that the aforementioned earlier proceedings dated 17.04.2023 shall be now read as an integral part Page Nos.4/8
and parcel of this order and the short forms and short references used in the earlier proceedings will continue to be used in the instant order also.
4.
Today, Mr.M.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for petitioner, petitioner, Mr.K.S.Mohandass, learned Public Prosecutor for Union Territory of Puducherry assisted by Ms.N.Danalatchoomy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 (official respondents), third respondent and the absentee were before this Court. 5.
In the first call in the forenoon, this Court had a short interaction with the absentee. Thereafter, the absentee and the petitioner had interaction during lunch recess. Post lunch in the second call, we had interaction with the absentee and third respondent.
6.
Absentee said that her date of birth is 25.01.2022 (she is 21 years of age and clearly a major); that she has married the petitioner; that she had come to her father's house in Puducherry on her own volition as her mother was a little unwell; that she would like to go with the petitioner now to her matrimonial home in Chengalpet District, Tamil Nadu; that she would like to keep visiting Page Nos.5/8
her parental home in Puducherry; that her mother-in-law is indisposed and therefore she wants to go with the petitioner for now.
7.
In our short interaction with the third respondent, he said that his wife (absentee's mother) is unwell and she has a back problem.
8.
We do not want to delve further into this matter as this is a habeas corpus legal drill and it comes out clearly that this is not a case of illegal detention or illegal custody. We also find that the absentee is clearly a major and it is for her to make her own choices.
9.
In the light of the narrative thus far, we drop the curtains on the captioned HCP and say that the captioned HCP is disposed of as closed albeit recording what unfurled before us in the hearing today which has been captured supra.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 19.04.2023 Index : Yes mmi Page Nos.6/8
To 1.The Superintendent of Police (North), Office of the Superintendent of Police, Puducherry.
2.The Inspector of Police, Lawspet Police Station, Puducherry.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.
Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mmi 19.04.2023 Page Nos.8/8