K.BALAMURUGAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is often said that a child is a "national asset". In this era, one cannot even imagine that a child could be treated as a property of the parents so as to market the child for monetary considerations. Anyone, who likes to read this order anymore, should prepare first of all himself to avoid shedding tears, as the allegations are heartrending. In short, a male child has been transferred to several hands, like a saleable commodity allegedly for monetary considerations. This Habeas Corpus Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce his male child, aged about one year, before this Court and hand over his custody to the petitioner.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner has stated that he is living with his wife - Mrs. Mariammal. They belong to a very poor family. During the year 2011, according to him, he borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the third respondent herein for delivery expenses of his wife. At that time, the third respondent obtained the signatures of the petitioner in blank papers. His wife delivered a male child on 24.10.2011 at Government Hospital, Palani. [The said child hereinafter shall be referred to as the "detenu"]. The petitioner has further alleged that due to poverty, he could not repay the borrowed amount to the third respondent. While so, according to him, on 29.10.2011, in the night hours, the third respondent came to his house along with unknown persons and demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- including interest. The petitioner disputed the said amount. Since the petitioner did not repay the amount, according to him, the third respondent took away the child by force without his consent on the assurance that she would return back the child to him as and when the petitioner repays a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to her.

(3.) The petitioner has further alleged that in this regard, he made a complaint to the second respondent police. He has further stated that the second respondent enquired the respondents 3 to 6 in respect of the child. The third respondent told the petitioner that if only he could repay the money, she would get back the child. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, he came to know that the third respondent is a broker, involving in child trafficking. He learnt that the third respondent is in the habit of luring the pregnant women, who come to the hospital for delivery by paying amounts to meet out the delivery expenses and after the child is delivered, to snatch away the child and to sell the child to some other persons for higher amount.