S R RASAMANICKAM Vs. GEETHAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the body of Sellammal, the mother of the petitioners, said to be confined in illegal custody by; the respondents and set her at liberty.

(2.) The allegations in the affidavit dated 8-11-1993 filed in support of the petition are briefly as follows :- The petitioner's father died in April, 1989. The abovesaid Sellammal is their mother, aged about 85 years. The 1st respondent was married to their younger brother Srinivasan, who had his homicidal death and the criminal case relating thereto is pending. The 1st respondent lived away from their family and from her husband. Difference of opinion persisted between her and husband. The 1st respondent took the custody of the petitioner's mother and retained her at the family house against the said mother's will. She never allowed any of the relations including themselves to see their mother. Respondents 2 and 3 are the employees of the 1st respondent and they watch their mother from being met by any of the relatives. Even death news could not be conveyed to their mother. Their mother-in-law Kulanthaisamy Gounder died on 26-10-1993 and the petitioners went to their mother's place of confinement for reporting the said death. But, they saw all the doors closed and after much shouting, respondents 2 and 3 came shouting back to them to go out from the place. After sufficient waiting they left the places. It happened likewise also when Ramayee Ammal, the brother's wife of the petitioner's mother and Doraisamy, son of the younger brother of petitioner's mother, died and the said news was sought to be conveyed. The 1st petitioner gave complaint to the police. However, the police has not taken any action. The 2nd petitioner, along with Meenakshi, the sister of the petitioner's father filed a habeas corpus petition in W.P. No. 15425 of 1991. There, the petitioner's mother was never produced before this court and in a stage managed manner she was produced before the Magistrate, before whom, she said that she was staying along. This cannot be correct since the respondents have confined her. Now two years have passed since then. The 1st respondent is no longer a resident of Erode. She is working about 140 Kilometres away from Erode for the past 1 1/2 years. She never came over to Erode also. Hence the relationship and affection between the mother and sons, cannot be disturbed by the respondents in this fashion.

(3.) As against the above said allegations, the 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 13-12-1993 on behalf of herself and respondents 2 and 3 and subsequently she also filed additional counter affidavit. In the original counter affidavit she has stated as follows :- Her husband was done to death and the 1st petitioner is one of the accused in the criminal case. It is denied that there was difference of opinion between herself and her husband. Sellammal is now residing at the house bearing Door No. 406 and 407, Perundurai Road and she is living there on her own free will. The allegation that she never allowed the relatives of the petitioners to meet her mother-in-law, is not true. Only on week ends, she is visiting her mother-in-law, who is living at Erode. She does not know anything about the petitioners coming to the place of her mother-in-law's residence. After seeing the averments in the abovesaid affidavits, she enquired respondents 2 and 3, whether such incident ever happened and they assured her that it was totally false. She does not know anything about the complaint given by the petitioners to the police. It is a false complaint. Her mother-in-law is staying at Erode and she is working 140 kilo metres away from there. She never interfered with the affection and relationship of the petitioners with their mother. The 2nd petitioner filed W.P. No. 15425 of 1991, in which she was made 1st respondent. This court, considering the advanced age of her mother-in-law, directed her to produce her mother-in-law before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Periyar District at Erode. Accordingly she produced her mother-in-law before the Magistrate on 9-3-1992 and her statement was recorded. In her statement she had stated that she was living in her own house and she had not confined by any of the respondents therein. Hence the writ petition was dismissed on 16-3-1992. The averment that her mother-in-law was produced before the Magistrate in a stage managed manner, is nothing but falsehood. No new grounds are placed before this court in this habeas corpus petition. It has been filed only to harass her. When her mother-in-law was produced before the Magistrate's Court, she and her brother accompanied her on 9-3-1992. At that time, the 1st petitioner and some others attacked her brother and threatened that they would kill her and her brother. Thereafter, she and her brother gave a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Erode Town police station and a case was registered in Crime No. 269 of 1992 and the said case is pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Erode. The habeas corpus petition is not maintainable.