O ULAGANATHAN Vs. K R G CHANDRASEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ULAGANATHAN, petitioner herein has filed this writ petition for habeas corpus for a direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to produce his minor daughter Sunitha alias Obulaxmi and for setting her at liberty in the custody of the petitioner. The first respondent is the father-in-law and the second respondent is the mother-in-law of the petitioner. The petitioner married Uma Maheswari on 9. 6. 1984 and a female child was born on 11.12. 1986 and the minor child Miss.Sunitha is now aged about six years. The minor daughter is studying in Mettur St.Marys Montessori School at Mettur Dam from 24. 5. 1990 and she was in the school till 5. 5. 1992. The petitioner has stated that his family is one of the richest families in Salem District carrying on business. The petitioner was living with his wife happily. The petitioner's parents are having two sons including himself and the petitioner is the eldest son. His wife being the only daughter-in-law of his parents, was treated with great love and affection by the entire family. The petitioner and his wife decided to educate their daughter in a good convent at Ooty. As per the wishes of the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner's wife opted for a separate family and accordingly, the petitioner and his wife lived in a separate house at Mettur Dam. The petitioner's wife used to visit the place of her parents frequently. The marriage of his younger brother was also fixed and the petitioner and his wife were actually engaged in the distribution of the wedding cards.

(2.) . On 7. 4. 1992 when the petitioner's wife was in the kitchen, her sari caught fire accidentally and on hearing her alarm, the petitioner rushed to rescue her and in that process, the petitioner also suffered 30% burns and his wife suffered 75% burns. In spite of best efforts, his wife could not recover and she succumbed to injuries at Kovai Medical Centre Hospital at Coimbatore or 25. 4. 1992. In her dying declaration, the petitioner's wife has confirmed that she suffered injuries purely by accident. The petitioner's father-in-law, i.e., the first respondent herein by his letter dated 26. 4. 1992 addressed to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mettur Dam, has stated that he has no doubt about the incident and he confirmed that the incident took place only by accident. While the petitioner and his wife were undergoing treatment at Kovai Hospital, their minor daughter was in the care and custody of the parents of the petitioner at Mettur Dam. In the month of May, 1992, the respondents 1 and 2 have taken away his minor daughter without his consent and knowledge and after some search for two days, the minor daughter was found in the hands of respondents 1 and 2. It is learnt that the respondents 1 and 2 came in two cars along with some rowdy elements and took away the minor daughter. In spite of mediation to secure the custody of the minor daughter, the respondents 1 and 2 have not conceded to hand over the minor child. Senior citizens of Salem town like R.Kandaswamy Gounder, Tirumalai Chettiar and R.Thiyagarajan, etc. participated in the mediation; but of no avail. The respondents 1 and 2 have threatened the petitioner with deadly weapons with the support of the rowdy elements.

(3.) IT is submitted that the second respondent has filed O.P.No. 209 of 1992 in the District Court, Salem under the Guardians and Wards Act for appointment of the second respondent as guardian of the minor suppressing all the facts and disclosing all false and baseless and defamatory allegations. The petitioner is in sound health with enough resources to safeguard the interest and welfare of the minor. His paramount consideration is to take care of the welfare of his minor child. The respondents 1 and 2 have even poisoned the mind of the minor and the petitioner is not given an opportunity to see and speak to his daughter. The object of the second respondent in seeking for appointment as guardian is not based on the welfare of the minor; but in a bid for the personal desire of the respondents 1 and 2 herein of harassing and for getting the property. The action of the respondents 1 and 2 in detaining the minor without the consent and against the wishes of the petitioner amounts to illegal custody. The application filed by the second respondent for appointing her as the guardian of the minor, cannot be entertained unless the petitioner is declared as an unfit person by a competent court to be a guardian of the minor and not otherwise. As the second respondent has already filed a petition seeking for appointment as guardian for the minor and if the concerned court finds that the petitioner is unfit to be a guardian and grants the relief as prayed for by the second respondent, then the petitioner undertakes to obey the said order. Till such time, the respondents 1 and 2 do not have any right at all to detain the minor. The respondents 1 and 2 have detained the minor secretly and even the respondents 3 and 4 could not trace out the whereabouts of the minor. The respondents 1 and 2 are not interested in the welfare of the minor; but only in the property of the petitioner. The petitioner is very much worried about the safety of his daughter. The respondents 1 and 2 have no right or manner to keep the minor daughter against his will. The minor has been illegally con fined against the wishes of the petitioner. Even the efforts of the respondents 3 and 4 in securing the daughter, are not satisfactory and if the respondents 3 and 4 had taken prompt action, there is no need for the petitioner to file this petition before this Court.