Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mr.K.Thangaraji has brought forth this application seeking Habeas Corpus for production of one Kasthuri before this Court. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows: The detenue Kasthuri married one Murugesan before fifteen years. They have two male children. Due to misunderstanding between them, they are living separately for the past 5 years. They have entered into an agreement for dissolving their marriage. The two sons are living with their father Murugesan. The said Kasthuri was living with her friend one Malliga. The second and third respondent took Kasthuri stating that a complaint was given against her and an enquiry has to be conducted. But the second and third respondent got the signature of Kasthuri in blanks papers and handed over Kasthuri to the 4th respondent Home. Subsequently, Kasthuri phoned over to Malliga and stated that she does not want to stay in the 4th respondent Home. The 5th respondent has submitted before the Learned Judicial Magistrate that as per the orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the said Kasthuri was under the custody of the 4th respondent(Under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005). 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for enquiry, the detenue Kasthuri is produced before the Court. She is enquired. According to her, she gave petition before the Welfare Officer, Dharmapuri and she was enquired. Following the same, she was directed to be in the Home, mentioned as 4th respondent herein. As on today, she is not willing to continue to be in the 4th respondent Home. 5. The learned counsel for the State produced a petition given by Kasthuri to the District Welfare Officer, (Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005), Dharmapuri, wherein she has stated that her husband suspects her fidelity and torturing her and under such circumstances, she has to be given protection. According to the learned counsel for the State, following the enquiry, Kasthuri was sent to the 4th respondent Home and she has been staying there. 6. Now, the detenue Kasthuri states that she is not willing to continue to stay in the 4th respondent Home but willing to go back to her house. According to the learned counsel for the State, following the enquiry, Kasthuri was sent to the 4th respondent Home and she has been staying there. 6. Now, the detenue Kasthuri states that she is not willing to continue to stay in the 4th respondent Home but willing to go back to her house. The statement made by the detenue is recorded. Admittedly, the detenue is 35 years old. Therefore, the Court feels no impediment in sending the detenue from the 4th respondent Home. The detenue Kasthuri is set at liberty. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.