Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2190 (MAD)

J. Vijayarani v. State rep by Inspector of Police

2008-07-02

D.MURUGESAN, S.PALANIVELU

body2008
Judgment D. Murugesan, J. The Petitioner by name J. Vijayarani wife of Jayaraman, has approached this Court by way of the present Habeas Corpus Petition with the grievance that her daughter Vinodhini is a minor and her date of birth is 13. 1991. She is undergoing XII standard during the academic year 2007-2008. On 13. 2008, her daughter the detenu went to write her higher secondary final year examinations and did not return after the examinations were over. In spite of search in various places, the detenu could not be found. Hence, a complaint was lodged to the Inspector of Police, Valangaiman Police Station on 23. 2008 for the offences under Section 363 I.P.C. In spite of the said complaint, the girl could not be traced and on enquiry, the petitioner came to know that her daughter was kidnapped by one Murugaraj S/o Nagaraj of the same village. Hence, she is constrained to approach this Court by way of the present Habeas Corpus Petition. .2. When the petition was taken up for hearing, the respondent secured the girl and she has been produced before this Court. We enquired the girl. She has stated that here date of birth is 12.03.1991 and she left her house on 13. 2008 and went to one Poyyar Village near Ariyalur alongwith the said Murugaraj. She had fallen with love with the said Murugaraj and therefore both of them got married in a temple located in the same village on 6. 2008. She was firm that she should be sent only with the said Murugaraj and she is not interested to go with her parents. In fact, she has expressed her apprehension that if she is sent with her parents, her life will be in danger. 3. We have also enquired the parents of the detenu who were present in the Court. They stated that they are willing to take the girl and they will look after well. But the detenu girl will be given to marriage to her maternal uncle. When we asked a question to the parents as to the alleged apprehension of the detenu to her life, they have stated that the said apprehension is false. 4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 5. When we asked a question to the parents as to the alleged apprehension of the detenu to her life, they have stated that the said apprehension is false. 4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 5. The issue of minor girls eloped with boys and subsequently getting married, has come up before this Court on more than one occasion. In fact, this Court had experienced number of such petitions filed by the parents with the grievance that their respective daughters have been kidnapped. But, after notice, it had come to light that though the girls were minor, they have voluntarily eloped with the boys and got married them. The consent of the minor for marriage cannot be recognized in the eye of law and the entrustment of the custody of the minor girls to the boys with whom the girls have eloped also cannot be recognized. In our considered view, we are ratifying the marriage itself. Of course, Similar issue came up before the Division Bench of this Court in 2003-2-L.W.(Crl.) 89 J.S. [Kumari (minor) aged 17 years, rep. by the Registrar General, High Court, Madras vs. 1. The Inspector of Police, Vyasarpadi 2. The Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi] In that peculiar case that the detenu though was minor, she had married one Kumaresan and left with him for some time and she was 20 weeks pregnant. When the matter was heard by Court, she wanted to stay only with the said Kumaresan, her husband. This Court had accepted her claim to live with her husband and consequently allowed her to go with her husband though she was a minor. .6. The very same view has been taken by yet another Division Bench in H.C.P.No.206 of 2006 [M. Ramachandran v. State of Tamilnadu rep. by the Commissioner of Police and two others[ (wherein one of us was a party). In that case also though the girl was 17 years and 4 months old and was a minor, she was living with her husband over a period of nearly one month and she would be attaining her majority in a short spell of one and half months and hence this court had allowed the detenu to go with her husband. 7. 7. However, in H.C.P.No.370 of 2006, [Raja Bhagathur vs. The Inspector of Police, B-5, Therkuvasal Police Station, Madurai and others] [wherein one of us was a party] this Court had an occasion to consider such a claim and rejected the said claim on the ground that no material is produced to sustain the marriage except the statement of the detenu. 8. In the fact of this case the date of birth of the detenu is 13. 1991; she will be reaching the age of 18 years only on 12.03.2009. Though she is persistent to go with the said Murugaraj, in the absence of any materials as to the alleged marriage between the detenu and the said Murugaraj and in view of the fact that she expressed her unwillingness to go with her parents, we are not inclined to send the detenu either with her parents or to the said Murugaraj. Instead we direct the detenu to be kept in the Government Observation Home, Purasawakkam High Road, Kellys, Chennai-10. She shall be kept in the said home till such time she attains majority. We make it clear that in the event the detenu is inclined to go with her parents at any point of time she is entitled to go with them. Otherwise, after she attains majority on 12.03.2009, she will set at liberty to take her decision to live either with the said Murugaraj or with her family members. Until the Superintendent, Government Observation Home, Purasawakkam High Road, Kellys, Chennai-10, is directed to keep the detenu in the said Home. 9. With the above directions, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.