Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Sundar has brought forth this habeas corpus petition for production of his wife Mrs.Jayashree, aged 30 years and his son Minor Sabaris, aged 6 years. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he married Jayashree, detenue on 6.3.2003 and it was a love marriage. Out of the said wedlock, a male child was born on 27.12.2003 and they were all living together. While the matter stood thus, the detenue was found missing from 11.5.2009 onwards and the petitioner came to know that respondents 3 to 6 have kidnapped her along with the child. On coming to know about this, he informed his father to give a complaint and accordingly, his father gave a complaint to the respondent-police, but no step has been taken. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a complaint to the respondent-police on 21.9.2009 and the same was registered in Crime No.586 of 2009 for "Woman missing" and "Child Missing" and investigation is on, but they have not been secured. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up for enquiry, the respondent-police produced the alleged detenue along with her son. On enquiry, she submitted that the petitioner married her on 6.3.2003 and the child was born to her. Respondents 3 to 6 were her colleagues. She was actually tortured not only by the petitioner but also by the in-laws of the family and she was ill-treated, due to which she was frustrated. Under such circumstances, she left the house voluntarily, in which respondents 3 to 6 have no role to play. She is employed as Teacher in Pondicherry and her son is also studying First standard. She is aged about 28 years and she is not willing to go with the husband and she wants to live separately. 5. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who bmits that the contention put forth by the detenue is false. 6. From the averments, it is clear that the detenue has married the petitioner on 6.3.2003 and out of the said marriage, a male child was born to her and the child is aged about 6 years. 5. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who bmits that the contention put forth by the detenue is false. 6. From the averments, it is clear that the detenue has married the petitioner on 6.3.2003 and out of the said marriage, a male child was born to her and the child is aged about 6 years. According to the detenue, who is aged about 28 years, she voluntarily left the petitioner and in-laws due to the torture given by them. She is employed at Pondicherry and the child is also studying I standard. The Court cannot force her to live with her husband in view of the circumstances brought to the notice of the Court. Though marriage is admitted, since she is a major and wants to live separately, writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued and the detenue is at liberty to live as per her wish. The petitioner can move the Civil Court of law, if he so advises. 7. At the time of enquiry, the detenue also made a request to the Court that the petitioner may be advised not to harass or torture her and she may be given necessary police protection. She is residing within the jurisdiction of Setharapattu police station. Hence, the jurisdictional police of Setharapattu is directed to afford necessary police protection to the detenue, if circumstances warrant so. The habeas corpus petition is disposed of accordingly.