JUDGMENT : M.M. Sundresh, J. (Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner S.Nalini, W/o. Sriharan @ Murugan, Ct.No.810 aged about 52 years, now confined as a life convict in Special Prison for Women, Vellore before this Court and to release her on ordinary leave for a period of six months in accordance with law.) 1. Heard the petitioner, who appears as party-in-person and the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 2. In this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents seeking ordinary leave for a period of six months on the premise that she has to make arrangements and thereafter conduct the marriage of her daughter. 3. Considering the limited scope of the petition filed, we refrain from going into unnecessary details. 4. The petitioner read out her grievance through a written speech. From the above, we could understand that she seeks six months ordinary leave on two grounds. First is with respect to the arrangement for her daughter’s marriage and thereafter conduct of the same. The second is to attend and treat her ailing father-in-law who is stated to be suffering from cancer. On the second plea, the petitioner stated that it is the fond hope of her father-in-law that marriage is arranged for the grand daughter and performed during his life time. Though the petitioner has poured out her grievance including incarceration for nearly 28 years, we are not willing to go into the same as any adjudication or observation over it would be beyond the scope of this petition. 5. The learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents would submit that Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules’) provides for a maximum period of 30 days as ordinary leave for a convict at a point of time. Therefore, this Court can consider granting of leave within the maximum limit prescribed under the Rule. The learned State Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that Rule 20 which speaks about the ground for grant of ordinary leave does provide for arrangement and participation of the marriage of the children of the prisoner as a ground for considering the ordinary leave. Therefore, this Court can consider granting of leave within the maximum limit prescribed under the Rule. The learned State Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that Rule 20 which speaks about the ground for grant of ordinary leave does provide for arrangement and participation of the marriage of the children of the prisoner as a ground for considering the ordinary leave. In that eventuality, it is accordingly submitted that the petitioner will have to comply with Rule 25 of the Rules. As she has not stated about the names of the sureties, address of the place in which she is going to stay, she will have to be directed to furnish the same. Needless to state that she will have to be escorted with the Police as done in the earlier case to a convict involving the similar offence granted by the Government in G.O.(2D).No.300 Home (Pri.III) Department dated 23.09.2017. Therefore, it is fairly submitted by the learned State Public Prosecutor that appropriate orders can be passed in the light of the Rules governing. 6. The submissions made by the learned State Public Prosecutor was explained to the petitioner. On the question of escort, the petitioner submits that she would not be in a position to pay for the cost. Therefore, she has pleaded that while there can be an escort, the expenses will have to be borne by the respondents themselves. 7. We find merit in the submission made by the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner is having an unmarried daughter, aged about 27 years, who could not live with the parental guidance is not in dispute. Rule 20 also provides for grant of ordinary leave in such an eventuality. However, Rule 22 speaks about the maximum of 30 days as ordinary leave. Though the Rule speaks about extension of the eligibility, the same can be only be exercised after the initial grant. Thus, we concur with the statement made by the learned State Public Prosecutor that 30 days is the maximum period which can be permitted at the time of granting leave under the Rules. We also take judicial notice of the fact that the State Government itself has made a recommendation for the premature release of the petitioner. From that, we can infer that her conduct is otherwise not adverse. We also take judicial notice of the fact that the State Government itself has made a recommendation for the premature release of the petitioner. From that, we can infer that her conduct is otherwise not adverse. If, in view of the State Government, the petitioner can be allowed to lead a normal life and she would not be a hindrance to the society otherwise, the request for leave can never be objected, which is also not the case before us. 8. On the second submission made by the petitioner with respect to the illness of her father-in-law, we are not inclined to go into it since the learned State Public Prosecutor has submitted that inasmuch as the said plea has not been raised and there is no material available to substantiate the same. Thus, the said issue is not gone into more so when we are satisfied with the genuineness of the first plea raised by the petitioner. 9. Considering the above and taking note of the fact that it is the first time in which the petitioner seeks ordinary leave coupled with the fact that some of the similarly placed persons have been granted ordinary leave and in the light of the recommendation made by the State Government itself, we are inclined to grant the petitioner 30 days ordinary leave. This leave is subject to the compliance of Rule 25. Needless to state that the petitioner is bound to give the names of the sureties along with the addresses apart from furnishing the place of stay with requisite particulars. 10. On a plea of the petitioner with respect to the payment of cost for the escort, we concur as there is no material to hold that the she is a woman of means. Admittedly, she and husband are in incarceration for decades. Rule 16 of the Rules also provides for escort by the Government at its own cost. Asking the petitioner to pay the cost would in a way take away the very order passed by us when it is impossible of compliance. In such view of the matter, we direct the respondents not to insist upon any cost for the escort to be provided to the petitioner. 11. We are inclined to grant the relief though there are certain procedural aspects which have not been complied with by the respondents. This is for two reasons. In such view of the matter, we direct the respondents not to insist upon any cost for the escort to be provided to the petitioner. 11. We are inclined to grant the relief though there are certain procedural aspects which have not been complied with by the respondents. This is for two reasons. Firstly, the respondents themselves made the recommendation in favour of the petitioner and secondly, they have not taken any decision in this regard apart from having no serious objection. 12. In the result, the petitioner is granted 30 days ordinary leave to facilitate the arrangement and preparation for her daughter’s marriage. It is well open to her to fix the marriage if it is possible within the aforesaid time. This relief is granted to her subject to the compliance as indicated above. 13. The petitioner shall furnish the particulars as sought for by the respondents apart from due compliance of the Rules within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Due verification can be made by the respondents on the compliance of the petitioner within a period of 10 days thereafter. After such verification, the petitioner shall be granted ordinary leave for a period of 30 days. On completion of 30 days, the petitioner will have to surrender before the respondents at about 5.00 p.m. on the next day. 14. The statement made by the petitioner that she would not give any interview stands recorded. Her further statement that she would not have any meeting with the leaders of the political parties or any other organization also stands recorded. 15. In view of the above, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands disposed of. Post the matter ‘for reporting compliance’ a week after the compliance of this order by the petitioner.