IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
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
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
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
To:The Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station,Kolathur, Chennai-99.