Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2505 (MAD)

M. Chandra Mohan v. Inspector of Police

2014-08-08

P.N.PRAKASH, S.RAJESWARAN

body2014
JUDGMENT S. RAJESWARAN, J. 1. The petitioner, father of the detenue Roshina, minor aged about 6 years, said to be in the illegal custody of the 2nd respondent/his wife, has come forward with this petition to cause production of his minor daughter and to set her at liberty. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he got married to the 2nd respondent on 28.01.2008 and the detenue Roshina was born out of the said wedlock. Since the petitioner was carrying on a business, he used to go to Kerala and hence, he rented a house at Salem near the residence of his mother-in-law/mother of the 2nd respondent Chitra for the well being of his wife and daughter. It is the further case of the petitioner that difference of opinion cropped up between him and the 2nd respondent when he came to understand about the extra-martital relationship of his wife/2nd respondent with one venkatesan, the 3rd respondent herein. Thereafter, both the petitioner and his wife/2nd respondent herein were living separately for the last two years and the child Roshina was in the custody of the petitioner/her father. While so, on 18.07.2014, the child/detenue was forcibly taken by the 2nd respondent/her mother, from the school. Thereafter, her whereabouts are not known. The complaint given to the respondent police also did not evoke any response. 3. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition with the above said prayer. 4. Today, the 2nd respondent/wife of the petitioner/mother of the detenue is present before this Court along with her child/the detenue Roshina and she is represented by a counsel. The petitioner/father of the minor child [detenue] husband of the 2nd respondent is also present before this Court. 5. On enquiry, the 2nd respondent/wife of the petitioner herein admitted that she has been living separately from the petitioner/husband for a couple of years and the child/datenue herein was also with him. Since she was not permitted to see her child, she has taken her child by force and that she is presently living with her child in her parental home at Salem, the address of which is as follows:- Mrs. Rani, M/o. Chitra, Dr. Nabvalar Nagar, Erumpalayam, Salem-15. Mobile No. 7373469484 6. Since she was not permitted to see her child, she has taken her child by force and that she is presently living with her child in her parental home at Salem, the address of which is as follows:- Mrs. Rani, M/o. Chitra, Dr. Nabvalar Nagar, Erumpalayam, Salem-15. Mobile No. 7373469484 6. However, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/petitioner’s wife would submit that the mother of the 2nd respondent/petitioner’s mother-in-law is planning to shift her residences shortly and as and when they shift their residence, the address would be duly intimated to the petitioner herein/father of the detenue. 7. The child was also enquired by us. We find that the child is comfortable in the hands of her mother/2nd respondent herein. Therefore, in the interest and welfare of the child/detenue, the temporary custody of the child/detenue in the hands of the mother shall not be disturbed now. 8. The petitioner, while agreeing to the temporary custody of the child in the hands of his wife/mother of the detenue/2nd respondent herein, would only pray that liberty must be given to him to see the child and be with her for some time. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner is the father of the minor child and the spouses, viz. the petitioner and his wife/2nd respondent have been living separately for the last two years. Though the child was in the custody of the petitioner/her father for the last two years, for the reason that presently, the child is comfortable with her mother/2nd respondent herein, it may not be proper to disturb the child from the custody of her mother/2nd respondent herein, at this stage, as it may affect the welfare of the child. The minor child is not inclined to leave her mother. 11. In the light of the above, we pass the following order with the consent of both the parties, viz. the petitioner/father of the detenue and the 2nd respondent/wife of the petitioner/mother of the detenue Roshina:- (a) The 2nd respondent/wife of the petitioner, should permit the petitioner/father of the minor child Roshina, to see her in the above mentioned address weekly twice, viz. on Saturdays and Sundays, from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. until further orders. This arrangement commences from 09.08.2014 onwards. on Saturdays and Sundays, from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. until further orders. This arrangement commences from 09.08.2014 onwards. (b) It is made clear that the petitioner shall not cause any physical or mental disturbance or harassment to the child during his visit. The petitioner should not, at any cost, take the child out of the residence, during his visitation rights in the above mentioned address. (c) It is further made clear that the petitioner/father of the detenue should not be disrespected or disregarded by anyone including his wife/2nd respondent herein or his mother-in-law/mother of the 2nd respondent herein, during his visits and he must be provided with all comforts to see the child. (d) It is open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court within a period of 3 months from today and file appropriate petition, if necessary, for seeking the custody of the minor child, either permanent or temporary. (e) The 2nd respondent/mother of the detenue and her parents shall not, on any account, violate the conditional order passed by this Court today, with their consent. (f) It is made clear that this arrangement will be a temporary one for a period of three months only from today, leaving open the rights of the petitioner to be decided by the appropriate Court. (g) If any violation of the conditions imposed by this Court by anyone of the parties is noticed, it is open to the affected parties to give police complaint to the concerned Police Station and on such complaint being preferred, the concerned Station House Officer shall take action in accordance with law. 12. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent also agrees for the above temporary arrangement. 13. With the above directions, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.