ELIZABETH PACKIAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed seeking a direction to the first and second respondents to produce the minor children viz., Nithila Kumar, aged about 3 years and Aarush Kumar, aged 1 year before this court and set them at liberty.

(2.) First petitioner is the maternal grandmother of the minor children. Alleging that her son-in-law, the third respondent had abducted the minor children from Australia and taken them out of care and custody of her daughter, this petition has been filed. The second petitioner has been impleaded as such under orders of this court of even date. The petitioners sought a direction that the first and second respondents/Police Authorities be directed to produce the minor children and set them at liberty.

(3.) The third respondent and the second petitioner are husband and wife. Petition informs that the second petitioner was a permanent resident of Australia as was the third respondent. The second petitioner as also the third respondent are Doctors. The second petitioner forwarded an E-mail informing that the minor children had been abducted by the third respondent and brought to India, causing great mental anguish to the second petitioner. The Investigation report of the Australian Police authorities reveals that the third respondent forged the second petitioner's signatures and wrongfully obtained passports and visas and brought the children to Chennai without the knowledge of second petitioner. It is contended that the third respondent and his family members caused the second petitioner much pain and anguish. Being financially dependent upon the third respondent, the second petitioner desired to take up a job by clearing Australian medical examinations, which she did. She joined the Ryde Hospital in Sydney and obtained a Fellowship of Medicine job in Liverpool Hospital as a Registrar. The second petitioner found herself in the family way in October 2009 and delivered the minor girl in July 2010. She resigned her job and spent about two years with the baby. She gave birth to the boy child in 2012. Upon request, the first petitioner went to Australia three months prior to the second petitioner's delivery, spent almost a year and returned to Chennai in April 2013. From January 2013, the second petitioner lived separately with the minor children towards undergoing General Practitioner Training in Wollongong, Australia, while the third respondent stayed at Sydney. Ruing the second petitioner's independence, the third respondent behaved aggressively and improperly and failed to provide a positive environment for the children. Following an incident of domestic violence on 13.05.2013, when the third respondent brutally attacked the second petitioner and even removed her Thirumangalyam, the second petitioner informed him that she would go to the Police to protect the safety of her children and herself. The third respondent plotted a scheme to punish the second petitioner by separating her from the children. As a first step, the elder minor daughter was taken away every week to stay with him at Sydney and meet his friends there. After some weeks, the third respondent took the second child/minor son out to play in a play area. On 21.06.2013, the third respondent informed second petitioner that he would take the children out to a tourist attraction and Theme Park on 24.06.2013, informing that three families were going along with him and that the children would have the company of other young children. Third respondent took the children on 24.06.2013 informing that he would return by 3.30 p.m. Not wanting to deprive the children of the love of their father and being of genuine belief that the third respondent would take proper care of them having absolutely no inkling that he would "abduct", the children, the second petitioner raised no objection whatsoever. Having no communication from the third respondent, the second petitioner sought to establish contact with him over phone by 4.30 p.m., but had no response. Using a 'blocked' number, a stranger informed that the third respondent was keeping the children for a day and that he would call her. Despite efforts, she was not able to establish contact with the third respondent. She approached the service provider towards tracing the blocked number and also E-mailed her husband/third respondent informing that she would complain to the Police. In desperation, she called the third respondent's friend about 11.00 p.m towards ascertaining the whereabouts of the children. The third respondent, using an overseas number, called her and informed that he had taken the minor children away and stated that she could follow him if she wanted the children. The second petitioner was shocked. The first petitioner has contended that towards causing mental anguish to the second petitioner and preventing her from practising medicine and her consequent independence, third respondent had hatched the scheme and brought the children to Chennai on 25.06.2013. It is informed that towards bringing the minor children to India, both parents would be required to sign the passport and visa application forms and the third respondent had forged second petitioner's signatures. It is also informed that the second minor boy child is a suckling child. First petitioner informed that the second petitioner complained to the Australian Police Authorities and their report dated 28.06.2013 revealed commission of serious criminal acts and fabrication of documents by the third respondent towards bringing the minor children to India. The second petitioner had informed her brother one Dr.P.Mathan who in turn sent a complaint to the Chief Minister's cell on 27.06.2013. Such complaint was forwarded to the respondents 1 and 2 for appropriate action. No action had been taken.