P RAMAKRISHNA SASTRY Vs. C T S RAGANAYAKULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, P. Ramakrishna Sastri, prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for the rescue and release of his daughter, Kumari Girija sastri, alleged, to be a minor, from the improper detention and wrongful custody of her by the respondents and for the restoration of her custody to him. The petitioner avers that his daughter was living with him at Madras, and that on 12-41961 taking advantage of his absence from town at Masulipatam, the respondents kidnapped her from his lawful custody, and that she is now leading a shameful life having illicit intimacy with the first respondent and living a life of prostitution for his benefit and on his compulsion,. The respondents are not in any way related to the. petitioner or his daughter. The first respondent is described by the petitioner in, his affidavit in support of the application as an "unemployed vagrant" and the second respondent is stated to be "a make up man" employed in the motion picture industry. The petitioner's story, if true, is indeed a borrowing tale sufficient to cause any parent great mental anguish and pain.

(2.) THE petitioner filed in this court Crl. M. P. No 736 of 1961 invoking the aid of s. 491 Crl. P. C. and, praying for the issue of a writ Of habeas corpus for the custody of his daughter Kumari Girija from the same respondents, alleging the same grounds alleged by him in Ants petition. This petition was heard by a division Bench of this court. consisting of Anantanarayanan and Kunhamed Kutti, jj and was dismissed. by order dated 1-5-1961. The ground of dismissal was that a writ of habeas corpus is a special remedy available to an aggrieved person only under circumstances of urgency and inability to resort to the ordinary remedies available in law. Anantanarayanan. J delivering the judgment of the Bench observed thus:

(3.) THE, petitioner then filed Crl. P. No. BM of 1981 again praying for the issue of a writ ot habeas corpus to obtain the custody of his daughter from the same respondents. In the first instance this application came on before one of us and notice was issued to the respondents by order dated 30-5-1961. In view of the fact that there wag no authentic record or documentary evidence relating to the age of the petitioners daughter at the time when the previous application Crl. M. JP. No. 736 of 1961 was dismissed. a direction was given for the radiological examination of the petitioner's daughter, by an expert attached to the Madras general Hospital. This was done and the Assistant Professor of Medical jurisprudence attached to the madras Medical College forwarded a report based upon radiological and physical examination of Miss. Girija, stating that she was aged, about 20 years. The petition came on for final disposal before Division Bench consisting of Anantanarayanan and Veeraswami JJ. but unfortunately on 'the date of hearing the petitioner was absent. No counsel also appeared for him. The learned judges accepted the report of the medical expert and held that the alleged minor Is not a minor at all, and that therefore the application in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted. The petition was accordingly dismissed. It must be noted that though the petitioner was absent on 3-7-1961 when his petition was cars. missed, the dismissal was not one for default but was based on the finding that the petitioner's daughter was not a minor.