JUDGMENT (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to to direct the 1st respondent to produce the missing daughter of the petitioner Ms.Mohanapriya, aged 19 years before this Hon''ble Court and set her at liberty.) M. Sundar, J. This order will now dispose of the captioned matter. 2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 02.03.2023 and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 3. Aforementioned earlier proceedings is telltale qua the crux of the matter as well as the trajectory the matter has taken in being listed today. To be noted, as regards listing today, adverting to paragraph No.5 of the previous proceedings, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, instructed by Mr.P.Palanivel (SI), Naagoor Police Station, mentioned the matter saying that the absentee has been located. 4. The matter was listed at the request of both sides, Mr.C.Saikrishna, learned counsel on record for the petitioner, petitioner, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 (official respondents), Mr.M.Govindarajan, learned counsel for the third respondent and third respondent are before us. 5. To be noted, though a counsel (Mr.M.Praveen Kumar) represented (in the previous listing) on instructions from the respondents 4 and 5 this learned counsel or any one representing learned counsel is not before us. It is further to be noted that no one was before us both in the first call (Forenoon) and second call (Afternoon). Be that as it may, we had a short interaction with the absentee, third respondent and petitioner in that order one after the other. It comes to light that the absentee and third respondent are married, the date of marriage is 05.12.2022 and we are informed that the marriage was solemnized at Kanur Pillaiyar Temple, Nagapattinam District. 6. At the request of the petitioner, there was an interaction between the petitioner and the absentee with adequate privacy albeit in Court Hall. This was during the lunch session. Post lunch session, the position is no different i.e., absentee said that she is married to third respondent and that she would go with the third respondent. Absentee is a major. Third respondent is also a major. 7. This was during the lunch session. Post lunch session, the position is no different i.e., absentee said that she is married to third respondent and that she would go with the third respondent. Absentee is a major. Third respondent is also a major. 7. In the light of the narrative thus far, as it is not a case of illegal detention or illegal custody, we deem it appropriate to not to embark upon a habeas corpus legal drill. This means curtains are down on the captioned HCP. 8. The sequitur is, captioned HCP is disposed of as closed.