Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 5629 (MAD)

C. Kannan v. The Sub Inspector of Police & Others

2009-12-16

M.CHOCKALINGAM, V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2009
Judgment :- M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Kannan, the father of the alleged detenue, has brought forth this petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 2.The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3.As could be seen from the submissions made and the averments found in the affidavit, the petitioners son was found missing from 9. 2009, and a complaint was given on 9. 2009, and the respondents 3 to 9 were the friends of his son, and his son developed illicit intimacy with the second respondent, and she became pregnant, and under the circumstances, he was forced to marry her, and the marriage has taken place on 28. 2009, and now he is in the illegal custody of the respondents 2 to 9, and the age of his son is only 22 years, and the marriage has taken place under forced circumstances, and though a complaint was given no steps were taken by the first respondent police, and under the circumstances, he was compelled to file this petition before this Court. 4.After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looking into the averments found in the affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that it does not even require an admission in the hands of this Court. Admittedly, even as per the averments found in the affidavit, the marriage between the petitioners son aged 22, a major, and the second respondent Manjula has taken place on 28. 2009. It is further added that they belonged to different community. Once the marriage is an admitted fact, even if the marriage has got to be avoided, it could be done only by the son on the reasons of force or any other invalidating factors as now put forth by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, once the marriage is an admitted fact, now the intention of the petitioner is to keep them separated and that too when they belonged to different community. Hence no question of any forcible custody or taking away of the petitioners son by his wife, the second respondent, would arise. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.