Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 463 (MAD)

M. Vairamutu v. Superintendent of Police

2013-01-22

M.JAICHANDREN, S.NAGAMUTHU

body2013
JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the detenue, namely, Saraswathi, daughter of the fourth respondent, aged about 24 years, before this Court and to set her at liberty. 2. It has been stated that the detenue is in the illegal custody of the fourth respondent, who is the father of the detenue. It has been further stated that the petitioner is running a chicken shop in the name and style of “Vairam Broilers”, at R.C.Street, Sethunarayanapuram Village, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar District. The fourth respondent is a retired Bank Manager and he is a close relative of the petitioner. 3. It has been further stated that, for the past 3 years, the petitioner and the fourth respondent's daughter, namely, Saraswathi, have been in love with each other. On 28.11.2012, the petitioner had married the detenue, at Sathuragiri Vinayagar Temple. The marriage had taken place without the knowledge and consent of the fourth respondent. However, some of the villagers of Sethunarayanapuram Village had participated in the said marriage. Thereafter, they had been leading their matrimonial life, at Sethunarayanapuram Village. While so, on 29.11.2012, the fourth respondent had come to the village, along with the four police personnel from T.Kallupatti Police Station and Watrap Police Station and they had attacked the petitioner and had also obtained his signatures in blank papers, threatening to book false cases against the petitioner. In such circumstances, the second respondent had handed over the custody of the detenue to the fourth respondent. Since then, the detenue has been in the illegal custody of the fourth respondent, against her wishes. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Habeas Corpus Petition, before this Court. 4. Today, when the matter was listed for hearing, the Sub Inspector of Police (Law and Order), T.Kallupatti Police Station, had produced the detenue, before this Court. While so, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had requested this Court to hear the matter, at 2.15 p.m., stating that the petitioner was on the way to the Court and that he would reach the Court in the meanwhile. However, when the matter was taken up for further hearing, at 2.15 p.m, the petitioner did not appear before this Court. 5. However, when the matter was taken up for further hearing, at 2.15 p.m, the petitioner did not appear before this Court. 5. On enquiry, the detenue had denied the factum of the marriage stating that there was no marriage that had taken place at Sathuragiri Vinayagar Temple, as alleged by the petitioner. She had further stated that she was not in love with the petitioner, as claimed by him. She had known him for some time and had only a casual acquaintance with the petitioner. 6. The father of the detenue, namely, Ayyanar, the fourth respondent herein had also stated that the detenue is from a respectable family and there was no marriage performed between the detenue and the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner. He had also stated that he was trying to make the necessary arrangements for her marriage, with a boy chosen by the members of his family. While so, the petitioner has preferred the present Habeas Corpus Petition by making false claims. 7. In view of the statements made by the detenue, namely, Saraswathi and her father, Ayyanar, the fourth respondent herein, this Court is of the prima facie view that there was no marriage between the petitioner and the detenue. Further, the petitioner has not produced any evidence, whatsoever, to show that there was a marriage that had taken place, between the petitioner and the detenue, at Sathuragiri Vinayagar Temple, as claimed by him. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the present Habeas Corpus Petition, filed by the petitioner, is devoid of merits and that it has been filed only with the mala fide intention of maligning the fair name of the detenue, causing her severe mental agony and harassment. There is no doubt that the filing of such frivolous Habeas Corpus Petitions should be discouraged by this Court, as such petitions could cause irreparable harm to young unmarried girls like the detenue. 8. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to dismiss the Habeas Corpus Petition, with exemplary cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only), which shall be paid by the petitioner, to the detenue, within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that the detenue is free to go along with the fourth respondent, who is her father, as per her wish. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed. 9. It is made clear that the detenue is free to go along with the fourth respondent, who is her father, as per her wish. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands dismissed. 9. For reporting compliance, the matter may be listed before this Court, on 25.02.2013.