S MALA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TRICHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus petition has been, filed for directing the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the petitioner's minor son by name Giridharan, aged about 4 years, before this Court and hand over the custody to the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the third respondent.

(2.) It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition that the petitioner married her uncle's son named Siva Prakasam on 1.2.2006 and in the said wedlock, a male child was born on 15.9.2007 and they were living at Avanthiyapalayam in Erode. Her husband worked as coolie in a textile company. On 23.11.2008, the petitioner's husband died in a road accident. After the demise of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner and her son were neglected by her husband's family members. The petitioner while working in a banian company at Tiruppur, she stayed in a rental house along with her colleague one Jamuna. During that period, the petitioner was not able to take care of her one year old child Giridharan. At that time, the said Jamuna advised the petitioner that her relative, viz. Shaik Dawood, the third respondent herein and his wife are running a child home at Sangiiiandavarpuram, Trichy and informed that they are charging Rs. 1,000/- per month for one child, being the cost for child care. As per the advise of the said Jamuna, the petitioner went and met the third respondent and admitted her son in the child home, from November 2009. Thereafter, she was visiting the third respondent now and then and she also paid the monthly fees of Rs. 1,000/- without any default. In May 2011, the petitioner lost her job due to closure of dying industries at Tiruppur. Thereafter, she decided to go, to her own town at Viliupuram and went to Trichy to take back her son from the third respondent. At that time, she found that the third respondent, without informing the petitioner, shifted his child home to some other place. The petitioner contacted the third respondent to his cell phone, but the third respondent refused to return back her son and he also did not inform his new address of the child Home. It is also submitted that the third respondent also threatened the petitioner with dire consequences If she tries to take back her son.

(3.) The petitioner made a complaint to the first respondent on 23.6.2011 and requested to take action against the third respondent and rescue her son from the third respondent. The first respondent forwarded the complaint to the second respondent and advised to take action on the petitioner's complaint. As per the direction of the first respondent, the petitioner approached the second respondent and requested to rescue and hand over her minor son to the petitioner. The petitioner further submitted a representation before the first respondent on 1.8.2011 through registered post and even thereafter, no action was taken. Hence, she has come up with the present Habeas Corpus Petition.