THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 06/02/2006

Coram :The Honble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM and The Honble Mr. Justice J.A.K. SAMPATHKUMAR

Habeas Corpus Petition No. 86 of 2006

Viruthagiri. .. Petitioner.
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police, Virudhachalam.
2. Manikandan. .. Respondents.

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce
the detenu Minor Varsha, 3 years old, before this Court and to entrust the
custody of the minor Varsha to the petitioner herein.

Mr. R. Sankara Subbu:- For petitioner.

Mr. M.K. Subramanian, Govt., Advocate (Crl.side):- For 1st respondent.

ORDER (Order of Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,)

The petitioner Viruthagiri has filed this petition seeking direction
to the respondents for production of minor Varsha, 3 years old, before this
Court and to entrust the custody to him in order to secure the ends of
justice.

2. It is seen from the affidavit filed in support of the above
petition, the petitioners son by name Suresh fell in love with one
Saravanammal alias Rosy and they got married in 2002. It was an inter-caste
marriage. Out of the said wedlock, a child by name Varsha was born to them,
and the petitioners son Suresh secured employment in Dubai and gone there
left his wife Saravanammal and the child in the custody of the petitioner in
the year 2003. According to him, the petitioner is the guardian of the child
Varsha. Due to absence of his son, his daughter-in-law committed suicide on
1-10-2005. The second respondent is the brother of the deceased Saravanammal
@ Rosy. It is stated that taking advantage of his illness, the second
respondent kidnapped his grand-daughter Varsha without his consent and
knowledge. The same was reported to the first respondent. In the absence of
proper action by the first respondent, according to the petitioner, having no
other remedy, filed the present petition invoking jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

3. It is not in dispute that the mother of the detenu is no more.
Even according to the petitioner, his daughter-in-law committed suicide.
Admittedly, his son is employed at Dubai. It is also seen from the materials
placed, as on date, the child aged about 3 years is with the second respondent
though her father is the natural guardian. As said earlier, admittedly, her
father is not in India and employed in Dubai. In the light of the controversy
and claim between the petitioner and the second respondent, we are of the view

that the same cannot be resolved in a Habeas Corpus Petition. The petitioner
is free to move the appropriate Court for custody of his grand daughter. With
this observation, this petition is dismissed.

R.B.
To:1. The Inspector of Police, Vridhachalam Police Station,Cuddalore District.