IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16-8-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN H.C.P.No.1554 of 2010 Punitha Manohar .. Petitioner vs A.C.Manohar .. Respondent Habeas corpus petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent to produce the second child of the petitioner by name M.Vibhashree, aged 9 years. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Nadana Sabapathy For Respondent : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Punitha Manohar has brought forth this petition for the production of her second child by name M.Vibhashree, aged 9, before this Court.
2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3.The case of the petitioner as could be seen from the averments in the affidavit and also the submissions of the learned Counsel, is that out of the wedlock, they have got two children, the first one aged 17, and the second one aged 9; that the petitioner and her husband after the marriage, for the past 19 years were living happily despite the fact that there were disputes that arose then and there, and they were amicably settled; but for the past six months, they have been living apart; that from November 2009 onwards, the respondent husband did not allow the children to speak with her; that she is a post-graduate in M.A.; that her first daughter was doing 12th Standard in St. John’s Higher Secondary School; that after it was over, admission was sought for in the Engineering College at Thandalam; that as far as the second daughter is concerned, she was doing 5th Standard in St. John’s Higher Secondary School, Mandaveli, from June 2010; that subsequently, she could not see the children; that a reply was coming from her husband that the children were put in Hyderabad; but, she could not meet them; that the whereabouts of the children were actually not known; that in such circumstances, she was compelled to issue a notice to the respondent husband through a Counsel; that he sent a reply with false allegations; that the petitioner had no option than to approach the Court for the production of both the children, and hence she has filed this petition.
4.After hearing the submissions made and looking into the averments, this Court is of the considered opinion that this petition does not require an admission by the Court. Admittedly, the marriage was over before 19 years, and two children were born, who are aged 17 and 9 respectively. They were actually with the couple till 2009. But, for the past six months, both the children are with the respondent husband and not with the petitioner wife. The main allegation that was made here is that she was not allowed to meet the children. Now exchange of notice was also noticed. It would be quite clear that all the allegations are actually denied. Further, it is also clear that she has come with frivolous allegations which could be made and has also made a requirement that he could come and have a happy married life. The further allegation that the whereabouts of the children are not known cannot but be a bald one. After the exchange of notice, it would be quite clear that the children are with the respondent husband. The petitioner if at all to have the custody of the children, this is not the forum what is expected of, and if advised, she can approach the Court of civil law for necessary relief. Under the circumstances, this petition does not require any consideration. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
nsv