Kumar v. The Superintendent Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Kumar ... Petitioner -vs1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Taluk Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

(R3 is Suo Motu Impleaded as per order of this Court Dated 11.09.2025 in HCP.(MD).No.1099 of 2025) ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents herein to secure and produce the body of person of the detenue namely Harshitha, D/o.Kumar, aged about 21 years before this Court and set her at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Vishnuram For Respondents :

Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 & R2 Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R3

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.) We had impleaded the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai to examine the genuinity of the marriage certificate issued for the detenue. We had noted that the marriage had been formalized by the Registration Department, North Joint I, Coimbatore. The certificate had also been issued through the Marriage Registrar, District Registrar's Office at Coimbatore.

2. A report had been forwarded by the Sub-Registrar, North I, Coimbatore, wherein he had stated that the marriage had been registered after following due procedure as enunciated by law. It had been stated that after verifying the age of both the bride and groom and also

examining their voluntariness to enter into the marital relationship, the marriage was egistered in accordance with the rules and after receiving proper documents relating to their age, a certificate thereafter has been issued. It had been conducted under the Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Marriage (Registration) Rules 1967, and Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The copy of the marriage certificate had also been forwarded to the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have to hold that the detenue is not in unlawful custody. Since, prima facie the marriage certificate shows the factum of marriage, we would close this Habeas corpus petition.

3. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus petition stands closed. [C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 18.09.2025 vsm NCC :Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

and R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

vsm To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Taluk Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

3. The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai.

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

18.09.2025