M VEERA GOWTHAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the father of a child, by name, V.Krithick Pranav Aditya, aged 3 yeaRs. The third respondent is his father-in-law and the fourth respondent is his brother-in-law. According to the petitioner, his wife has deserted him, and she has been living with the respondents 3 and 4. However, the child (hereinafter referred to as "detenu") was all along in his custody. While so, according to the petitioner, on 28.8.2011 at 5.00 p.m. the detenu was taken by force by the respondents 3 and 4 and he is now illegally detained by them. It is the further case of the petitioner that the detenu was studying in TVS Matriculation School in LKG and now, because of illegal detention, the detenu could not continue his education. With these allegations, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the detenu and to hand over him to the custody of the petitioner.

(2.) We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who has taken notice for the respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) From the averments made in the affidavit as well as in the complaint dated 28.8.2011 given to the second respondent, it could be inferred that there has been a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife. Admittedly, his wife is now residing along with her father, namely, the third respondent and brother, the fourth respondent at their house. Now, the detenu is kept in the house of the respondents 3 and 4, which means the detenu/child is in the custody of the mother. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they have got no legal right to detain the child. In our considered opinion, in the Habeas Corpus Proceedings, this Court is not very much concerned about the legal rights of an individual to keep custody of the minor but this Court is concerned only with the fact as to whether the detenu/child has been illegally detained by any body. In this case, the detenu is after all in the custody of the mother and her family membeRs. This cannot be stated to be illegal. It may be true that the detenu has discontinued education. For that matter, the Habeas Corpus Petition cannot be allowed and there can be no direction issued as prayed for by the petitioner. The remedy for the petitioner lies elsewhere before a competent Civil Court. In such view of the matter, the Habeas Corpus Petition does not have merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.