G SARAVANAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner to trace his wife Lakshmi Priya, aged about 18 years.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he has married the detenue on 09.01.2011 at Samayapuram Mariamman Temple and they were living peacefully at Sangliandapuram, Trichy. On 24.01.2011, when they proceeded to attend a function at Kumbakonam, the third respondent/father of the detenue/his wife, came along with a few persons and threatened them with dire consequences. Immediately they rushed to the Kumbakonam All Women Police Station and lodged a complaint. On the same day i.e., 24.01.2011, the petitioner/husband received a phone call from second respondent/Inspector of Police, Trichy stating that his brother was confined to the Police Station and he should came to Police Station with his wife. THE petitioner and his wife rushed to Polise Station and there all the persons were present and Assistant Commissioner of Police threatened him to leave his wife and get away. Fearing for his life, his brother and the petitioner came out of the Police Station and after consulting their elders, they went back to the Police Station the next day and enquired second respondent about his wife. THE second respondent informed the petitioner that his wife was taken away by her family members. On 27.01.2011, his wife Lakshmi Priya/the detenue herein contacted him over phone and informed him that she was kept in illegal custody by her parents. On the same day the petitioner gave a complaint to the second respondent. Since the complaint given to the second respondent has not been seriously investigated into, the above Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.

(3.) TO ascertain the truth, we interacted with the detenue/Lakshmi Priya who has clearly stated that after marrying the peititoner on 09.01.2011, she lived with him as his wife for more than 15 days. But, she has been forcibly taken by her parents against her wish and she is compelled to live in her native place, a village near Bangalore. She asserts that she would like to live only with the petitioner/her husband and she prays for setting her at liberty to go with the petitioner/her husband. When we asked the petitioner, he also claims that he has married the detenue and lived with her for more than 15 days as her husband. His adoptive mother, an elderly woman, who is present before this Court also, admits that they are married and they were living together as husband and wife in her house. She also leads for appropriate orders to be passed so that both could be united and made to live as husband and wife.