T.Ramesh v. Superintendent Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA H.C.P.No.1224 of 2021 T.Ramesh ..Petitioner Vs.
1. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruppathur Thiruppathur District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Omerabad Police Station, Thiruppathur District.
3. C.Chakkaravarthy
4. Pattammal
5. Vijayalakshmi
6. S.Sankar
7. Thenmozhi ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 2nd respondent to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son master Ritesh Vickram, aged about 2 years (minor), before this Court from the illegal custody of the respondents 3 to 7 and hand over his custody to the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Subburam For RR 1 and 2 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking to direct the 2nd respondent to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son master Ritesh Vickram, aged about 2 years (minor), before this Court from the illegal custody of the respondents 3 to 7 and hand over his custody to the petitioner. 2.
It is the case of the petitioner that he got married to Yuvasri on 01.06.2014 and was blessed with two children viz., Rakshan Dhev, aged about 5 years and Ritesh Vickram, aged about 2 years; he was working in Australia and his wife also joined him there with their eldest son; his wife dropped the second child with her parents viz., third and fourth respondents in Thiruppathur and came to Australia, where, on account of marital discord, a matrimonial litigation has commenced; he came to India to take custody of his second child; when he went to see his child, the third and fourth respondents did not permit him, but instead, a quarrel ensued, in which, a case and counter case has been registered by the police in Crime Nos.329 and 330 of 2021 against both the parties. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present habeas corpus petition. 3.
Heard Mr.K.Subburam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
4.
We had a video call with the third and fourth respondents along with the child from the second respondent/ police station and when we enquired, the third and fourth respondents stated that the child has been left by her daughter when the child was three months old and since then, they have been taking care of the child. They also stated that they will have no objection in the petitioner visiting the child, provided, he does not create any trouble.
5.
On a conspectus of the facts obtaining in the case, it is seen that the child is not in the illegal custody of the third and fourth respondents for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, since the petitioner's wife herself has left the infant in the custody of her parents before leaving for Australia. That apart, the petitioner's first son viz., Rakshan Dhev, aged about 5 years, is now in Australia with the petitioner's wife and the petitioner has come alone to India and demanding the custody of the second child.
6.
Matters of this nature has only to be dealt with in the regular Court and not by this Court in exercise of its habeas corpus jurisdiction.
7.
With regard to the representation of the third and fourth respondents that they would permit free access to the petitioner to visit the child viz., Ritesh Vickram peacefully without causing trouble, we permit the petitioner to visit Ritesh Vickram during weekends in the house of the third and fourth respondents without causing any trouble, if he so desires. It is made clear that this is purely a temporary arrangement until appropriate orders are passed by the competent Court. However, the petitioner cannot forcibly take away the child from the custody of the third and fourth respondents. With the above directions, this habeas corpus petition stands closed.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nsd To
1. The Superintendent of Police, Thiruppathur District Thiruppathur.
2. The Inspector of Police, Omerabad Police Station, Thiruppathur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai - 600 104.
+1cc to Mr.K.Subburam, Advocate, S.R.No.40261 H.C.P.No.1224 of 2021 GPL(CO) RGA(27/08/2021)