Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2118 (MAD)

Rani v. District Superintendent of Police

2014-07-15

S.MANIKUMAR, V.S.RAVI

body2014
Judgment : S. Manikumar, J. 1. It is a strange case filed by the mother alleging illegal detention of her own daughter Krishnaveni, by her own husband. 2. As per the supporting affidavit, the alleged detenue had studied Teacher Training Course. Alleging that on 05.06.2014, respondent No.4 had abducted the petitioner's daughter Krishnaveni, against her wishes, Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed. 3. A complaint has been given and pursuant to the same, the case in Crime No.94 of 2014 has been registered on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kallikudi Police Station, Madurai District, the respondent No.2. Apprehending arrest, respondent No.4 has moved an anticipatory bail application before this Court. As per paragraph 4 in the supporting affidavit to this writ petition, during the hearing of the anticipatory bail application, both the alleged detenue and the fourth respondent appeared before this Court and that the alleged detenue had stated that she was married to respondent No.4. They were living as husband and wife at Bangalore. Recording the same, on 23.06.2014, anticipatory bail is stated to have been granted. Now alleging that Krishnaveni, has been detained and locked up in a room at Bangalore, Habeas Corpus Petition is filed. 4. At paragraph No.5 of the supporting affidavit, the petitioner has contended that respondent No.4 is torturing her daughter Krishnaveni to give more jewels and money. Even from the averments made in this writ petition, it could be deduced that this Court had granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.4 on the specific statement made by the alleged detenue that she was married to respondent No.4 and they were living as husband and wife at Bangalore. When as the respondent No.4 living with his wife, there is no case for illegal detention. If there is a illegal demand for jewels and money or there is a case for harassment, for the above said reasons, remedy is available to the writ petitioner under the penal laws. As such no complaint has been received from the alleged detenue also. 5. In the light of the orders passed by this Court on the specific statement made by the alleged detenue, we find no reason to entertain the present Habeas Corpus Petition. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.