Judgment :- (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J) 1. On "Being Mentioned" by the learned counsel for the State, this matter is taken up this day. The detenue is produced before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also present. 2. As could be seen from the averments made in the affidavit, the daughter of the petitioner, aged 20 years, is found missing from 1.4.2010, but she has not been secured by the respondent-police. Hence, he is compelled to file the present habeas corpus petition. 3. This day, the detenue is produced before this Court by the respondent-police. When she was enquired, she stated that she was born on 5.6.1988 and she studied upto X Standard. She married Thirunavukkarasu in a temple at Sulurpet and she is living with him. The said fact was not known to the petitioner. It is not correct to state that she was either threatened by the wife of the fourth respondent or she was taken custody by them. She is all along living with her husband at Sulurpet from where she has been produced before this Court. It is stated that a case in Crime No.566 of 2010 was registered by P.5 Maha Kavi Bharathi Nagar Police Station and the same is pending investigation. 4. The averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit that the detenue was threatened by the wife of the fourth respondent and apart from that her signatures were obtained in revenue papers and she was found missing from 1.4.2010 are too contrary. From the statement made by the detenue as referred to above, it is quite clear that the detenue is a major and she is living with her husband. Under such circumstances, the request of the petitioner for habeas corpus does not arise for consideration and the habeas corpus petition is disposed of accordingly.