S.Saravanakumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR S.Saravanakumar ... Petitioner -vs1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Ramanathapuram.
(R3 is impleaded as per order of this Court dated 26.11.2015) 4.Marimuthu 5.Mohamed Lukman Hakkim ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to secure and produce the body of the petitioner's wife namely Pradeepa, aged about 34 years before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Murugan For Respondents :
Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.) This petition has been filed complaining that the wife of the petitioner has been missing on and from 24.10.2025 and a complaint had been lodged, consequent to which, FIR in Crime No.241 of 2025 had been registered under the caption "woman missing" by the second respondent police.
2. As a matter of fact, the wife of the petitioner had earlier gone missing on 05.10.2025 along with her two children and in that connection, FIR in Crime No.222 of 2025 had been registered on
05.10.2025. She, thereafter, came back on 07.10.2025, dropped the two children and went missing again on 24.10.2025. She was produced before us on 26.11.2025. The husband and the father of the detenue were also present along with two children.
3. We had directed the appearance of the fourth respondent, Marimuthu, with whom she had admittedly forged a relationship. He is present today and we enquired with him. He admitted that he has a relationship with the detenue/wife of the petitioner, Pradeepa. He stated that he had pledged the jewels, which she had given to him and had converted that into cash. He also admitted that the petitioner herein had purchased properties in the name of the detenue and that she had also stated that and he also confirmed that she would reconvey the properties back either in the name of the petitioner or in the name of her children. It is very evident that the 4th respondent Marimuthu had with surreptitious intention, taken away the wife of the petitioner with object to take away her jewels and property.
4. The detenue has been produced and she is alive. She stated that she will go only with the 4th respondent.
5. Recording the statement, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed.
[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.] 27.11.2025 vsm
To 1.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police, All Woman Police Station, Ramanathapuram.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.
and R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.
vsm 27.11.2025