IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23-6-2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN HCP No.503 of 2009 Jamilan .. Petitioner vs 1.The Commissioner of Police Chennai Suburban Police Chennai 2.The Inspector of Police Avadi, Chennai. 3.Ashokan Soloman .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's wife Preethi, aged 21 years, before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public Prosecutor for RR1 and 2 Mr.R.Karthikeyan for R3 ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner one Jamilan has filed this petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the learned Counsel for the third respondent.
3.The petitioner and the alleged detenue Preethi are present before the Court.
4.The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the averments in the affidavit and also the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner married the said Preethi, the daughter of the third respondent, on 26.5.2008, as per the Christian Marriage Act; that they have been living together; that the third respondent did not like the same; that he raised his objections; that under the circumstances, they shifted the residence from Tirunelveli to Madras; that they have been residing at Avadi; that they have been living happily; that while the matter stood thus, on 4.4.2009, the third respondent along with others came in a Car and abducted both the petitioner and his wife Preethi; that they were taken to Para Salai at Kerala where he was tortured; that thereafter, she was taken in a Car; that she is now kept under the illegal custody of the third respondent; that under the circumstances, he came back to Madras and lodged a complaint before the second respondent police; but, they refused to take the same; that no action has been taken, though it was brought to the notice of the police that she is being kept under the illegal custody of the third respondent, and hence the petitioner had no option than to move this Court for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
5.In the last hearing, the third respondent, when he made appearance, made a request to the Court that she is writing MBBS examination, and he could be permitted to produce the said Preethi before the Court after 18.6.2009. Accordingly, the matter is scheduled this day. All are present.
6.The Court enquired Preethi. According to her, the petitioner herein was a neighbour, and she was taken to the Office of the Registrar of Marriages at Tirunelveli, to be as a witness, but after getting signature, she came to know that it was a marriage registered, and immediately she informed the same to the father, and thereafter O.P. was filed before the Court of civil law at Tirunelveli for declaration that the marriage registered was null and void, and the petitioner was set ex-parte, and an application to set aside the ex-parte order was filed, and now the proceedings are pending. She would further add that she never stayed with him even one day either after the alleged marriage or on the day when it was registered or any one day either at Tirunelveli or at Madras. She would further state that she is not willing to go with him since she is not his married wife, and further she wants to go with her father who is present before the Court.
7.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was actually a marriage between the petitioner and the said Preethi, and they have been living together, and the third respondent is an influential person, and under the circumstances, they came over to Madras and were living happily, and even then, there was interference by the third respondent, and he took her forcibly along with him, and under the circumstances, a complaint was given; but, no action has been taken yet. In short, the learned Counsel reiterated the averments in the affidavit in support of the petition.
8.The Court considered the submissions and looked into the materials available.
9.It is not in controversy that the alleged detenue Preethi was born on 16.10.1988, and hence as on today she is a major. When she is enquired, she would state that she was taken to the Office of the Registrar of Marriages where she was asked to be a witness, and thereafter she came to know that her signature was obtained as if she has married the petitioner. Contrarily, the petitioner has come forward to state that actually there was a marriage between them. Now the factum of marriage cannot be gone into by this Court. Even assuming that there was a marriage, the petitioner cannot come forward with this petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus since it is outside the scope to be decided as to the factum of marriage, and he must go to a Court of civil law for necessary relief. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the third respondent has filed an OP before the Civil forum at Tirunelveli seeking a declaration that the marriage alleged by the petitioner was null and void, and he was also set ex-parte. It is admitted by the petitioner’s side that an application has been filed to set aside the ex-parte order before the said civil forum. All would be indicative of the fact that the third respondent has actually sought for a declaration that the alleged marriage is null and void, and the matter is actually pending before the Court of civil law. Under the stated circumstances, the contentions put forth by the petitioner’s side that she came over to Madras and was also staying with him, and the third respondent came over to Madras and took her forcibly, and she is now under his illegal custody are to be rejected as false. Further the said Preethi is found to be a major. She would also submit that she is now staying with her father voluntarily. All these would go to show that the petition has no legs to stand.
10.In the light of what is stated above, the consideration of the request of the petitioner for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus does not arise. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.
nsv/
To:
1.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Suburban Police
Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police
Avadi, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Madras