Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. 1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court one Maheswaran aged 28, has brought forth this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. 2. The grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that one Valarmathi, aged about 24, the daughter of one Kalimuthu, belonged to his village; that they were also residing in the same street; that they fell in love with each other; that they decided to marry; that accordingly, the marriage took place at Palani Murugan Temple without the knowledge of the parents; that thereafter, she was residing in the parents house; that when they came to know about the same, they detained her; that subsequently, when he questioned, she was taken to Madras and left in the custody of the third respondent; that while the matter stood thus, he received a phone call from her on 211. 2008; that thereafter, he approached the second respondent police and gave a complaint on 12. 2008; that it was treated as petition; but, no action has been taken yet, and under the circumstances, he was compelled to file this petition for a writ of habeas corpus before this Court. 3. When the matter was taken up in the last hearing, notice was taken by the Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents 1 and 2. 4. The alleged detenue Valarmathi is now produced before this Court this day. The Court also enquired her. According to her, she was born on 18. 1987, and it is true that Maheswaran, the petitioner herein, belonged to her place, and she knew him; but, she had neither loved nor married him, and further, she has actually completed 12th Standard, and she was employed in a milk vending shop, and thereafter, she stopped the work, and she came to Madras to the third respondent who is her brother, and she is staying there for the past one week, and the allegations now put forth by the petitioner as if they fell in love with each other, and there was a marriage, and subsequently she was detained by the parents forcibly and now she is being detained by the third respondent are all false, and it is true that she knew the petitioner and nothing more. Further the alleged detenue Valarmathi would state that her mother has come to Court, and she is ready and willing to go with her mother and not with the petitioner since she has no connection with him. 5. The statement of the alleged detenue is recorded. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He would maintain that there was actually a marriage. But no material is placed before the Court except the mere assertion made by the petitioner. From the statement made by her, it is noticed that she is a major, and the mother has also come. The allegations in respect of the love and marriage are actually denied as recorded above. Under the circumstances, this Court feels that it is not a case where it can issue a writ or consider the request of the petitioner for taking her custody. Accordingly, she is set at liberty, and this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.