G VEERALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the fourth respondent. They have got a child, by name, Rakitha Rai Melkiba, who is now aged 7 years. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are living separately due to some matrimonial dispute between them. Admittedly, the petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 1010 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking a direction to the fourth respondent herein to entrust the custody of the child (hereinafter referred to as "detenue") to the petitioner for safe custody. The said petition was contested by the fourth respondent herein before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar. Having considered the rival contentions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by an order dated 20.5.2008 allowed the petition and directed the fourth respondent to hand over the custody of the child to the petitioner for safe custody. The fourth respondent being aggrieved by the said order, filed an appeal against the same in C.A.No. 49 of 2009 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhuangar at Srivilliputhur. The petitioner herein appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and contested the case. By judgment dated 16.11.2009, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhuangar. As against the same, now it is submitted by the fourth respondent that he has filed a Revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No. 176 of 2010 and the same is pending before this Court. It appears that the petitioner herein has not made appearance in the Criminal Revision Case. So far, this Court has also not granted any interim order in the Criminal Revision Case in favour of the fourth respondent herein. The Criminal Revision Case is still pending.

(2.) It is also submitted by the fourth respondent that in the mean while, the petitioner has filed a petition in Guardian OP No. 29 of 2011 before the District Court, Theni, declaring that she is the natural guardian of the detenue. But no petition has been filed seeking interim relief in the said Guardian OP. The Guardian OP is also pending.

(3.) In these circumstances, the petitioner has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to secure the custody of the detenue and to hand over custody of her to the petitioner.