Anitha, v. The Superintendentof Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.12.2017

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA H.C.P(MD)No.1745 of 2017 Anitha

...Petitioner

-vs1. The Superintendent of Police, Surveyor Colony, Madurai-625 007.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam,

3. Maruthu, 4.Maruthi

...Respondents

Prayer: This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents 1st and 2nd to secure and produce the body or person of the petitioner's husband namely Manikandan S/o. Rasu, aged about 21 years, the detenue who may be in the illegal custody of somebody else at the behest of Respondents 3 and 4 and produce before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor.

For R-3 & R-4 : Mr.M.Raja Rajan

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Manikandan, aged 21 years. It is alleged in the petition that both of them fell in love with each other and on the assurance that the detenu would marry the petitioner, they had physical relationship. Thereafter, the detenu refused to marry the petitioner and therefore, a panchayat was convened in the Village and the

villagers advised the detenu to marry the petitioner. However, since the detenu was trying to avoid her, the petitioner preferred a complaint to the respondent police. Subsequently, Betrothel was conducted on 25.04.2016. Since the petitioner did not attain the age of majority as on that date, the marriage was postponed till the petitioner attained majority. However, the detenu refused to marry the petitioner by demanding dowry. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondent police on 21.02.2017. Thereafter, the respondents 3 and 4 executed an affidavit on 22.02.2017 agreeing to arrange marriage to the detenu with the petitioner on the petitioner completing the age of 18 years. Thereafter also, the respondents 3 and 4 refused to implement the said promise.

Pursuant to which, the petitioner preferred a representation to the respondent police on 29.09.2017. While so, on 04.10.2017, at the intervention of the respondent police, the marriage was solemnized at Ganeshan Temple in front of AWPS, Thirumangalam. However, the detenu was found missing from 04.10.2017. Since his whereabouts were not known, a complaint has been given on 13.11.2017 and since no effective steps were taken, the petitioner is before this Court with this petition.

2. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 22.12.2017, the detenue has been produced by the respondent police. The petitioner was also present before this Court. Since it is a matrimonial dispute, the matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre to arrive at an amicable settlement.

3. Today, when the matter was again listed before this Court, it is reported that the dispute is amicably settled between the parties.

4. In view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

1. The Superintendent of Police, Surveyor Colony, Madurai-625 007.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thirumangalam,

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to Mr.M.Raja Rajan, Advocate Sr.No.94635 +1cc to Mr.R.Murugan, Advocate Sr.No.94441 RR VB/JC/SAR1/22/01/2018/3P/6C H.C.P(MD)No.1745 of 2017 22.12.2017