Judgment S. Rajeswaran, J. 1. The petition has been filed by the petitioner, being a Human Rights and RTI Activist and Member of Review Committee for Women Safety in Public Transport State Transport Authority, to produce the detenue V. Parimalam, mother of two minor sons and set her at liberty. 2. According to the petitioner, the detenue is the sister of one G. Perumal, who is working as a Security in her Flat Complex. G.Perumal along with his parent were originally living near Tiruvannamalai. The family was involved in agriculture. Due to employment prospects, G. Perumal moved to Chennai in 2008. The petitioner knows his family for a long time. The detenue was married to a drunkard and had two children. Her husband deserted her and she was working as a Dishwasher at a local Hotel in Tiruvannamalai. She was introduced to the second, third and fourth respondents, who under the pretext of offering a good job for the detenue, introduced her to drugs. Taking advantage of her addiction, they compelled her to flesh trade also. She was tortured and beaten and has been illegally detained against her wish and will. Her two children are living in the custody of the said G. Perumal, the brother of the detenue in Chennai and are staying in the Flat Complex. 3. Earlier, when a complaint given to the respondent-Police was not looked into properly, through the High Court Legal Services Authority, HCP No.895 of 2014 was filed before this Court and the detenue, V.Parimalam appeared before this Court on 9.4.2014. On enquiry, the detenue stated that she was working at the Women's Hostel “Eva Velu Arts College” Tiruvannamalai, thereby she was earning a sum of Rs.2,700/- per month for her livelihood and on her request, she was allowed to continue in the same employment, as she was not inclined to go with her brother and she wanted to live alone. Recording her submissions, this Court disposed the said HCP No.895 of 2014 and set her at liberty to be on her own. 4. Thereafter, it is found that she was not working at the Women's Hostel “Eva Velu Arts College” Tiruvannamalai and in fact there was no such College in Tiruvannamalai at all. Recording her submissions, this Court disposed the said HCP No.895 of 2014 and set her at liberty to be on her own. 4. Thereafter, it is found that she was not working at the Women's Hostel “Eva Velu Arts College” Tiruvannamalai and in fact there was no such College in Tiruvannamalai at all. Therefore, fearing about the life of the detenue, the petitioner, out of sheer concern and also in the interest of the minor children, has filed this petition once again to secure her and produce her before this Court and set her at liberty. 5. In the last hearing, we heard the petitioner and taking into account the predominant interest and welfare of the minor children, who are left without parents in their maternal uncle's house, we directed the first respondent-Superintendent of Police, to file a status report. Accordingly, a detailed status report has been filed by the first respondent after conducting an enquiry. 6. Today, the petitioner is present along with the minor children, the brother of the detenue and father of the detenue. The detenue has been secured and produced today and the respondents 2, 3 and 4 are also present. The fifth respondent is not present before this Court. 7. The Inspector, Ms. Hemamalini, Women Police Inspector from Tiruvannamalai Women Police Station, Town, is also present and she has also conducted an enquiry. 8. On enquiring the parties, particularly the detenue individually, we find that the detenue is aged about 28 years and she is on her own living with the second respondent. While admitting this fact, she would also assert that she would live only with the second respondent. The report of the Superintendent of Police, the first respondent herein, also reiterates the fact that she is living with the second respondent at D.No.8/12, Ramalinganar 8th Street, Tiruvannamalai. The Report of the Superintendent of Police, would further reveal that the detenue is not subjected to any cruelty/abuse and she is not induced to use drugs. But, however, the fact remains that she does not like to live with her own brother and father, who are present before this Court. Whereas she wants the custody of the two minor children, who are present before this Court. But, however, the fact remains that she does not like to live with her own brother and father, who are present before this Court. Whereas she wants the custody of the two minor children, who are present before this Court. But since the brother and father of the detenue, on knowing the mind of the detenue and the life she leads, are not ready to part with the minor children, since the detenue is living with somebody else, who is not connected with the family i.e., the second respondent herein. We are also not inclined to send her two minor children alongwith the detenue, as the detenue is not living with her husband nor her family members, but living with a third party i.e., the second respondent herein, who is a stranger. 9. The third respondent is a lady not known to the detenue. She states on enquiry, that she reads the palm and advises people. The fourth respondent is the friend of second respondent. 10. In this background, we are left with no option excepting to close this petition. While appreciating the sincere efforts taken by the petitioner, who is a Human Rights and RTI Activist and Member of Review Committee for Women Safety in Public Transport State Transport Authority in the interest and welfare of the two minor children of the detenue, whose mother, according to the petitioner is being misused and abused by the second and fourth respondents. But, there are no materials available before this Court to substantiate her case that the detenue is being misused and abused by the second and fourth respondents. Whereas, a contrary picture is being projected in the report of the first respondent. The detenue, aged about 28 years, while denying all these allegations against her, has chosen to live on her own. Therefore, this Court has no other option excepting to close this petition by recording the statement of the detenue. 11. The detenue has made it very clear that she wants to live on her own and she is not interested in going with her brother and father and she has said so in their presence in Court. Her statement that she is not misused or abused by anyone, much less, the second and fourth respondents is recorded. 12. 11. The detenue has made it very clear that she wants to live on her own and she is not interested in going with her brother and father and she has said so in their presence in Court. Her statement that she is not misused or abused by anyone, much less, the second and fourth respondents is recorded. 12. In the light of the above factual matrix, it is open to the petitioner to work out her remedy in the manner known to law and this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed recording the statement made by the detenue. We place on record the extraordinary interest taken by the petitioner herein, being a third party Human Rights Activist, purely in the welfare of the minor children of the detenue, who are separated from their parents by circumstances. 13. While appreciating the efforts taken by the petitioner, we advised the detenue to discuss and have a personal talk with the petitioner herein, whose interest is only the detenue's family. The petitioner and the detenue also agreed to talk with each other. The Woman Inspector, who is present before this Court is also directed to be with the petitioner and the detenue when they discuss the matter and render her assistance, if any. 14. With the above observations, the Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.