Habeas Corpus on Custody to Father

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS          

Dated: 25/01/2006

Coram :The Honble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM   and The Honble Mr. Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR      

Habeas Corpus Petition No.40 of 2006

R.Suresh Kumar                         … Petitioner
Vs
1. K.A.Kalavathi
2. K.M.Arumugham  
3. The Inspector of Police,
   Kolathur Police Station,
   Kolathur, Chennai-99.                        … Respondent
        Petition under Article 226  of  the  Constitution  of  India  for  the
issuance  of  writ  of habeas corpus to direct the first respondent to produce
bodily the petitioners male child by name Siddarth, aged about 4years,  in
the court and hand over the said child to the custody of the petitioner.

For petitioner         :  O.R.Abul Kalam.

For Respondents        :  Mr.M.K.Subramanian, Government Advocate.

:O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)  

        The  petitioner by name R.Suresh Kumar has filed this petition seeking
for a direction to the first respondent K.A.Kalavathi, who is none  else  than
his wife, to produce his male child by name Siddarth, aged about 4 = years, in
the Court and for furth irection to hand over the child to his custody.

        2.  In the affidavit filed in  support  of  the  above  petition,  the
petitioner  has  stated  that  the first respondent is his wife and the second
respondent is his father-in-law.  The petitioner married the first  respondent
five  years  ago  and  he  was blesse rough the first respondent with one male
child by name Siddarth, now aged 4 = years, studying in Kinder  Garden  class,
Don Bosco Matriculation School, Madras.  They also have a female child by name
Mathumitha, aged  about  2  =  years.    According  to  the  pet  itioner,  on
08.11.2005, the first respondent left the house of the petitioner  along  with
the male  child  without  any  intimation.    There  is  no  dispute  that the
petitioner has not made any  complaint  against  anyone  including  the  third
respondent.

READ  Whether court can convict accused on basis of testimony of hostile witness?

        3.   Learned  counsel  for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to
Section-6 of  the  Hindu  Minority  and  Guardianship  Act,  1956,  vehemently
contended  that  inasmuch  the petitioner being father/natural guardian of the
minor, he is entitled to the custod the child and that this  Court  can  issue
suitable  direction  to  the  first  respondent  for handing over the minor in
favour of the petitioner.  In support of the above contention, he relied on  a
decision of this Court reported in AIR 1984 Madras 186 (Suresh Babu v.  Madhu)
and also  a  decision  of the Kerala High Court in Vasudevan vs.  Viswalakshmi
(AIR 1959 Kerala 403).

        4.  Insofar as the custody/entitlement/right over the minor  child  is
concerned,  we  are  of the view that the said question cannot be gone into by
this Court, hearing Habeas Corpus Petition.  Admittedly,  the  petitioner  has
not approached the competent rt/Forum to vindicate his grievance.  Inasmuch as
even according to the petitioner, the child, aged about 4 = years, is with the
first respondent, who is none else than the mother of the child, we are of the
view  that  the  claim  of the petitioner cannot be gone into by this court in
this petition.  It is made clear that the petitioner is free to  approach  the
appropriate forum to vindicate his grievance.

        5.   With  the  above  observation,  the  Habeas  Corpus  Petition  is
dismissed.

JI.

To:The Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station,Kolathur, Chennai-99.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *