S SIVAKUMAR Vs. JAYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Sivakumar, preferred this petition on 30th June, 1995 pleading for issue of a habeas, for production of Padmini, daughter of first respondent Jayaraman, who, according to him, was kept in illegal custody, by the first respondent. The further prayer is for setting at liberty, the detenu, on such production. In support of his prayer, the petitioner has sworn to an affidavit which contains which contains the following details: According to the petitioner, on 21. 3. 1995 he married Padmini according to Seerthirutha Form, in the presence of his friends and relations. He had known Padmini for the last two or three years, since she was his neighbour. Both of them were friendly and the intimacy between them got strengthened. Both of them, then decided to get married in accordance with Hindu customs. PETITIONER was able to convince his mother that she should approach the parents of the girl, to seek Padmini in marriage. Accordingly, his mother along with other relations met the first respondent, but he would not accede to the request on the ground of difference in caste. Even Padmini was not able to convince her father. First respondent attempted to separate both of them. PETITIONER would have it, that both of them felt, that they had no option other than getting married and that was how they became husband and wife on 21. 3. 1995 in consequence of a Seerthirutha marriage performed before a small gathering. On the same evening, after performance of matrimony, Padmini had given an undertakings in writing, before a Notary public, at his office. The affidavit would further read that heeding to the advice of friends, both of them chose to return to their homes waiting for an opportune moment to have the problems settled and thereafter have a regular marriage performed. The further averment in the affidavit is that the first respondent, on becoming aware of the Seerthirutha marriage as well as the declaration made by his daughter before the Notary Public, had taken to violence and commenced to beat his (petitioner's) wife, who fell down unconscious. Padmini was even denied medical attention and the petitioner complained to the local police, which was of no avail. Meanwhile, first respondent removed padmini to a remote and secluded place in Chingleput District. Her whereabouts were not known to the petitioner till the date of filing of the impugned habeas corpus petition. PETITIONER has expressed his apprehension, that the first respondent may even get rid of his daughter. Alleging that his wife was in illegal custody, he has pleaded for issue of a habeas, underlining the fact, that his wife aged 19 years and he aged about 26 years, were majors and there was no impediment whatsoever for their getting married. In the affidavit, he has further categorically stated, that no one can dispute the said marriage. He had chosen to enclose along with the affidavit, a photograph of his wife and the undertaking given by her before a Notary.

(2.) ON 3. 7. 1995, this habeas corpus petition was taken on file by this Court and notice was ordered to the respondents. After an adjournment in between, on 20. 7. 1995 detenu Padmini was produced before us by the first respondent. ON the same day, first respondent as well as Padmini, chose to swear to two different affidavits, which were handed over directly in court. First respondent, has stated in his affidavit, that his daughter Padmini had never married the petitioner and it was false to state that the petitioner was known to his daughter for the last two or three years. According to him, he was previously residing at Mugapare and shifted his residence to Tondiarpet area, only during May, 1994. Hence the claim of the petitioner that he had known his daughter for the last two or three years was utter falsehood. He dubbed as false, the statement of the petitioner, that he and his daughter were in friendly terms and liked each other. First respondent would have it, that the petitioner was living in the house opposite to him and was frequently asking his daughter to give her consent for his one sided love. This proposal was vehemently refused by his daughter. ON such refusal, on several occasions, the petitioner had threatened to forcibly abduct his daughter and spoil her reputation. The affidavit of the first respondent further disclose, that the petitioner had chosen to file the present habeas corpus petition only for the purpose of spoiling the image and reputation not only of his daughter, but the entire family. He has specifically stated in his affidavit, that his daughter had never signed any undertaking before any Notary Public. He denied having inflicted cruelty on his daughter, as well as having denied her, medical attention. His daughter was happily living with him and the whole case trotted out by the petitioner was false and fabricated. He has further added, that even after receipt of notice, from this Court for production of his daughter, the petitioner indulged in threatening him and his family members, that the detenu must agree, of having married him, for otherwise the entire family, may have to face dire consequences.

(3.) IT is rather unfortunate, that even after the documents were sent for comparison, to be the Handwriting Expert, the petitioner had again attempted to create pin-pricks to the first respondent and the members of his family. An additional affidavit was presented before us on 16. 8. 1995 by the first respondent, wherein he has stated that on 31. 7. 1995, petitioner along with ten other anti-social elements threatened and assaulted him and ethiraj, his son, while they were proceeding to a hotel. IT was admitted by the petitioner, that on a complaint given by the first respondent to H-5 police, he was arrested and produced before the concerned Magistrate on the next day, before whom he pleaded guilty and paid the sentence of fine imposed on him. Though the petitioner stated that the case was false, he had no answer as to why he did not state so before the trial Magistrate and exposed the falsity of the complaint by pleading not guilty and insisting on conduct of a trial.