D P SAMPATH Vs. GOVINDAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, a student aged 20, has applied under S. 491, Criminal P. G. to recover the custody of the wife, Padmavathi Animal, aged 17, by the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that she was illegally and improperly detain-ed by her mother, respondent 1 and her brothers, respondents 2 and 3. I am very doubtful as to the admissibility of this petition which I was inclined to dismiss in limine but for reliance placed on the Bench decision Subbaswami Goundan v. Kamakshiammal, 53 Mad. 72 by Baaaley C. J, and Anantbakrishna Aiyar J. I admitted the pati-tion with notice to the respondents and the peti. tion has been heard by us as a Vacation Bench.

(2.) Padmavathi Ammalaredily appeared before us accompanied by her mother and she says she left her husband of her own accord owing to ill-treatment by his mother and grandmother, who both live in his house. She fully bears out the affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents that they have nothing whatsoever to do with her leaving her husband and their not keeping her from him against her will.

(3.) We have carefully considered whether this is a fit case in which we should exercise the disoretion conferred on in by Section 491, Criminal P. O. and pass an order which we think should more properly be passed by a Guardian and Wards Court under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act where considerations of the welfare of the minor as prescribed by the statute can and should be taken into consideration. Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act runs thus :