IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22/06/2004
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.673 of 2004
M. Krishnamurthi .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. T. Samarakodi
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police
G9, Thazhambur Police Station
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.B. Thanikachalam
For Respondent-1 : Mr.K. Sankar Krishnan
For Respondent-2 : Mr. Abudukumar Rajaratnam
Additional Public Prosecutor
:O R D E R
(The order of the Court was made by
P.D.DINAKARAN, J.)
The petitioner, claiming himself as the husband of one Thangamani, and
complaining that she has been illegally detained by her father, the first
respondent herein, seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to
produce the detenue before this Court and set her at liberty.
2. According to the petitioner, he married the detenue Thangamani on
5.5.2004 and lived with her till 14.6.2004.
3. After notice, the first respondent produced the detenue Thangamani
before this Court. The said Thangamani is a post graduate in M.A. Tamil
Literature and aged about 24 years. She is capable of understanding the pros
and cons of her choice and decision with respect to the friendship developed
with the petitioner. She openly denies the marriage said to have taken place
on 5.5.2004 and the registration of the same by one J.John Amulraj, the
Registrar who solemnized the marriage under the Christian Marriage Act and
issued a certificate to that effect. She questions the validity of the said
marriage, as the petitioner never converted himself to Christianity and he
continues to be a Hindu till date and therefore, the marriage could not have
been solemnized between them by the Registrar of Marriage under the Christian
Marriage Act.
4. The petitioner, who also appeared before us, states that the
detenue married him on her own volition, in the presence of elders and the
Registrar and the same was registered before the Registrar of Marriage under
the Christian Marriage Act and he also fairly concedes that even though he
used to go to Church and pray, he had not converted himself to Christianity
and in all respects he continues to be a Hindu.
5. It is trite law that a writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a
man to obtain possession of a woman alleged to be his wife does not issue as a
matter of course. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course
especially when a man seeks the assistance of the Court to regain the custody
of a woman. Before a Court accedes to this request it must satisfy itself at
least prima facie that the person claiming the writ is in fact the husband and
further whether valid marriage between him and woman could at all have taken
place, vide Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1625.
Therefore, the very locus standi of the petitioner to seek the relief as
prayed for, in his capacity as the husband of the detenue, is at stake.
6. Be that be, since the detenue is not willing to go with the
petitioner and on her own volition she stays with her father, the petitioner
is not interested to press the above writ petition. Hence, finding no merits
in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.
7. However, as the petitioner apprehends that the first respondent
and his relatives would cause danger to his life and body, the father of the
detenue, viz. the first respondent as well as the detenue undertake that they
would not either cause any danger to life of the petitioner as apprehended by
him and the above statement of the first respondent and the detenue is put on
record.
8. Before parting with the order, since it was brought to our notice
that the petitioner relies upon a marriage certificate issued by one J.John
Amulraj, the validity of which, in our opinion, is ambiguous, we direct the
police to enquire into the authenticity of the certificate referred to above,
and also refer the matter to the licensing authority who issued licence to
J.John Amulraj for issuing certificate under the Christian Marriage Act. On
such notice, the licensing authority shall hold an enquiry and pass
appropriate orders, of course, after giving fair and reasonable opportunity to
J.John Amulraj.
Index : Yes Internet : Yes To 1. The Sub Inspector of Police G9, Thazhambur Police Station Kancheepuram District. 2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. kpl