S.ISHWARIYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Captioned 'Writ Petition' ('WP' for the sake of brevity) has been filed in this Court on 20/9/2023 with a certiorarified mandamus prayer assailing an 'order dtd. 24/8/2023 bearing reference No.14704/j/F/2/2023 made by the third respondent' [hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] rejecting an application dtd. 21/8/2023 made by the writ petitioner seeking one month ordinary leave and six days emergency leave for her spouse who is a prison inmate.

(2.) Factual matrix in a nutshell is that writ petitioner's spouse one Thiru.Sankar, son of Thiru.Sanjeevirayar is a prison inmate i.e., a convict prisoner having been convicted and sentenced to undergo 20 years of rigorous imprisonment with a default fine clause of 5 years simple imprisonment (fine of Rs.2.00 lakhs) vide conviction and sentence dtd. 11/12/2018 in Special S.C.No.27 of 2018 on the file of learned Mahila Court, Cuddalore; that this conviction and sentence was assailed in this Court vide Crl.A.No.10 of 2019 and the same came to be dismissed on 22/2/2021 but it is to be noted that it has been clearly recorded that the victim is now the spouse of the prison inmate and a mother of two children born out of the wedlock; that this criminal appeal was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court unsuccessfully but a curative petition against the same has been filed and the same is pending; that leave was sought on two grounds namely a) for making arrangements for admission of children in the school and b) for repairing the homestead; that the leave application was rejected vide the impugned order primarily citing Rule 2(4) which defines 'sentence' and Rule 35 which talks about not granting leave when trial is pending qua a prisoner; that it has to be noted that Rules 2(4) and 35 are Rules qua 'Tamil Nadu Suspension of Sentence Rules, 1982' [hereinafter 'said Rules' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

(3.) Dr.S.Manoharan, learned counsel for writ petitioner in his campaign against the impugned order submitted that the reasons i.e., grounds on which leave has been sought has not been subjected to disputation or contestation but leave application has been rejected on technical grounds.