BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10/6/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.ARUMUGHASWAMY H.C.P.(MD) No.440 of 2010 P.R.Veerappan @ Raja .. Petitioner vs 1.The Superintendent of Police Pudukkottai District 2.The Inspector of Police Arimazham Police Station Pudukkottai District 3.The Sub Inspector of Police Arimalam Police Station Pudukkottai District .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the body and person of the petitioner's wife Geetha, aged 22, D/o. Muthalagu, now under the illegal custody of the third respondent herein before this Court and set her at liberty. !For Petitioner ... Mr.S.M.Rajarajan ^For Respondents ... Mr.Daniel Manoharan Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mr.Veerappan @ Raja has
brought forth this petition for the production of one Geetha alleging that he
was doing ITI Course at M.R.Arunachalam Polytechnic at Pudukkottai; that he went
for his employment in the year 2003; that he returned to his native place in
2008; that the said Geetha is the daughter of one Muthalagu; that they fell in
love with each other; that she was doing B.Com. course at Seethalakshmi Achi
Women’s College, Pallathur; that they decided to marry; that thereafter, he left
for Singapore in view of his employment; that they used to talk by phone; that
thereafter, he returned to his native place; that he went over to the house of
her father and asked for the marriage; but, he refused; that under the
circumstances, they decided to marry; that accordingly, the marriage has taken
place on 4.11.2009, at Perumal Temple at Pallathur as per the Hindu customs and
rites, but against the will of her father; that thereafter, she has actually
been taken away in a TATA Sumo car, and then he gave a complaint immediately to
the second respondent police; but no steps have been taken, and under the
circumstances, this petition has been brought forth.
2.This day when the matter is taken up for enquiry, she is also produced
by the police. She is enquired. According to her, she was born on 17.5.1991,
and she was doing B.Com., and while she was doing second year course, the
petitioner was torturing her, and in view of the same, her studies were abruptly
stopped by her parents, and all the allegations that she fell in love with him
and the marriage has taken place and she was forcibly taken away by the parents
are all nothing but false, and now she has been staying with the parents, and
this petition has been brought forth with false allegations.
3.The statement of the alleged detenue is recorded. After looking into
the averments made and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and also the alleged detenue, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petition has been brought forth with all false allegations possible.
From the enquiry of the detenue, it would be quite clear that she was actually
doing her B.Com. course and her studies have been abruptly stopped by her
parents in view of the torture made by the petitioner herein. It would clearly
be indicative of the fact that there was no love affair, but it was one sided,
and due to the torture, her studies have been put an end. That apart, he has
come forward with the false allegations as if there was a marriage between
himself and the detenue on 4.11.2009. Besides that, when she was actually taken
and when the complaint was given, no particulars have been given. All would
clearly indicate that with all false allegations, this petition has been brought
forth, and it is a glaring example of abuse of process of law.
4.In the instant case, the matter has got to be looked into seriously by
the Court for the reason that a girl’s education has been put an end not only by
his activities, but also he has made all false allegations of marriage, etc.,
and she has also been produced before the Court. The Court has to look from the
point of view that it was an attempt not only to tarnish her image and
character, but also to ruin the future of the girl. Under the circumstances,
this Court is of the considered opinion that not even a dismissal would suffice,
but awarding a cost of Rs.10000/- would meet the ends of justice.
5.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten
thousand only) to the Legal Aid, Madurai, towards cost, and this petition is
disposed of.
nsv
To
1.The Superintendent of Police
Pudukkottai District
2.The Inspector of Police
Arimazham Police Station
Pudukkottai District
3.The Sub Inspector of Police
Arimalam Police Station
Pudukkottai District
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai