Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court one Suresh Babu has brought this application that his uncles daughter, Priya D/o S. Muthukumar, aged 22 years is kept under the custody of third to fifth respondents illegally and under such circumstances, it has become necessary to file a Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the alleged detenue, Priya who is produced before the Court by the Police. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the detenue, Priya is the daughter of the 4th and 5th respondents. Against her will, she was given in marriage with the 3rd respondent by the 4th and 5th respondents and for a short while, they lived together. hen the 3rd respondent started ill treating the detenue, she left the house and was staying with the petitioner and his family members. A complaint was given by the parents of the detenue before the Manamadurai Police Station as if the petitioners family have kept the detenue under illegal custody. The detenue was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai,where she gave statement that she was not illegally detained and the same was recorded. Thereafter, the 3rd and 4th respondents gave another complaint before the Thirumangalam Police and a case came to be registered as if the petitioners family have kept the detenue under illegal custody. She was again produced before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and she gave the statement. The same was recorded and she was again allowed to go. While she was staying with the petitioners and others in their family, on 18.02.2010, the 3rd to 5th respondents came in a Toyota car and forcibly took the detenue and now, she is under illegal custody of the respondents 3 to 5. Hence, this petition is filed to produce her before this Court and set her at liberty. 4. The 3rd to 5th respondents denied the allegation found in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and they have filed a counter affidavit. The detenue is produced before the Court and she is enquired. At the time of enquiry, she has stated, it is true that the marriage between herself and the 3rd respondent took place in the year 2006 but it was done against her will. The detenue is produced before the Court and she is enquired. At the time of enquiry, she has stated, it is true that the marriage between herself and the 3rd respondent took place in the year 2006 but it was done against her will. She went to the house of the petitioner and lived there for some time. A complaint was given at Manamadurai Police Station by the 4th and 5th respondents and she was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai and thereafter, a complaint was given at Thirumangalam and she was produced before the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, where she revealed the entire story. She would further submit that she was forced by the 4th and 5th respondent to marry the 3rd respondent against her will and she got married and now, her parents is forcing her that she must live with the 3rd respondent, to which course, she is not amenable. 5. As on today, she is not forcibly taken. She was taken from the petitioners house to her grand mothers house and now, she was secured and produced before this Court. She is not ready and willing to go either with the 3rd respondent or with the 4th and 5th respondents. The statement of the detenue is recorded. 6. After going into the averments made and submissions made by the alleged detenue, it is quite clear that the alleged detenue is aged 22 years. According to the detenue , it is true, she married the 3rd respondent but it was against her will. This Court is not called upon to enter into or consider the question, whether the marriage is a valid one or not. It is an admitted position that the alleged detenue is aged 22 years and she is a major. She is not willing to live with the 3rd respondent since she is being treated cruelly, according to her. Though two cases were registered as if the petitioner and his family members have forcibly taken her, she was produced before Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and XIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras where she had stated that she was never forcibly taken or detained by the petitioner and his family members. The same was recorded by the said two Courts and she was set at liberty. The same was recorded by the said two Courts and she was set at liberty. All would clearly indicate that the 3rd to 5th respondents are compelling her to live with the 3rd respondent but she is not willing to do so. Under such circumstances, it would be fit and proper to dispose of the Habeas Corpus Petition by setting her at liberty. The detenue is set at liberty. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of. 7. At the time of enquiry, it is submitted by the detenue that there is continuous threat from the 3rd to 5th respondents. Hence, necessary protection has got to be afforded to her. Since it is represented that she is living within the local jurisdiction of Manamadurai, necessary direction is given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai, within whose jurisdiction she is now residing, to give her assistance, if so required, under the circumstances.