Jamuna v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Jamuna D/o. Pugalzhenathi, Old No.157 New No.125 K.V.B. Garden, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-600 028.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State Rep. by The Director General of Police, Dr. Radha Krishnan Salai, Chennai-600 004.

2. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.

3. The Inspector of Police, H-3, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Maraimalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu-603209.

4. Puspalatha No.16/54, Gunaveerar Street, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu -603 209.

..Respondent(s)

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to secure and produce the detenue, namely Mr. Yuvanesh Kannan before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty from the illegal custody of his family members. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.M.R.Sheik Abdul Rahim For Respondent(s):

Mr. C.R.Malarvannan, (for R1 to R3) Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) Mr.R.Jayaprakash (for R4)

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.) The petitioner has sought production of K.Yuvanesh Kannan, her husband. According to her, their marriage was solemnized in 2019, they had left the common matrimonial home in 2023 together, but after some time, her husband left, leaving her alone with their child. 2.The detenu is in Court today. The question of his have been detained by any person against his wishes, does not arise, as he clarifies unambiguously that he had voluntarily left their home due to matrimonial discord. In fact, he would submit that notice for divorce has been sent to the petitioner and she has also responded to the same.

3.The petitioner and her child are also present in Court today and the petitioner states that while she does not mind resuming the marital ties, she is in dire need of maintenance for herself and their daughter, from the detenu.

4.Having regard to the narration as above, there is no requirement to keep this Habeas Corpus Petition pending any more and recording the aforesaid, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.

5.A footnote. We have had occasion to interact with both the petitioner, who is present with her child, and the detenu. Hence, and notwithstanding the above order, since the petitioner has certain immediate demands such as her jewels, that she says are in possession of the detenu, and maintenance, we refer the matter to Mediation.

6.Let both parties appear before the Mediator at 4.30 p.m. this evening. Preliminary report of the Mediator by the next date of hearing. 7.List on 24.06.2026 under the caption 'to report progress of mediation'. (A.S.M.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 17-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vs Note to Registry: Upload Today.

To

1. The Director General of Police, Dr. Radha Krishnan Salai, Chennai-600 004.

2. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.

3. The Inspector of Police H-3, Maraimalai Nagar Police Station,

Maraimalai Nagar, Tamil Nadu-603209.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5. The Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Madras.

DR.ANITA SUMANTH J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN J.

vs 17-06-2026