Chithra vs The Inspector of Police

S. Manikumar, J.—On 04.06.2014, this Court passed the following order:-

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the first respondent to trace out and produce the detenu by name Ushmeena, who is the daughter of the petitioner.

The detenu herself has voluntarily appeared. The petitioner is not present.

It is seen from the records that the detenu has got birth on 14.09.1996.

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has contended that in Secondary School Leaving Certificate, the date of birth of the detenu has been mentioned as 14.09.1995 and therefore she attained majority.

Considering the fact that in the Birth Certificate of the detenu, it has been clearly mentioned that the detenu has got birth on 14.09.1996, this Court is of the view that the date of birth mentioned in the Birth Certificate prevails over the date of birth mentioned in the School Certificate. Under the said circumstances, the detenu has to be lodged in a Home. Therefore it is directed to lodge the detenu in Vidiyal Home, Muthupatti, Near Palanganatham, Madurai till 06.06.2014 and directed to produce her by then.

Post the matter by 06.06.2014.

On 06.06.2014, when the detenu was not willing to go with her mother, after perusal of the records and by observing that the alleged detenue did not attain the age of majority, a Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court has directed that the detenue, be lodged in a Home, till she attains majority. She was directed to be detained at Vidiyal Home, Muthupatti, near Palanganatham, Madurai. The Hon''ble Division Bench has directed the matter to be listed on 15.09.2014 and thus it is listed today.

As per the Birth Certificate dated 22.01.1996 produced by the petitioner, the date of birth of the alleged detenue is 14.09.1996. She has completed 18 years of age as on 13.09.2014.

Section 3 of the Majority Act, 1875 deals with the age of majority of persons domiciled in India, which reads as follows:-

"(1) Every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on his completing the age of eighteen years and not before.

(2) In computing the age of any person, the day on which he was born is to be included as a whole day and he shall be deemed to have attained majority at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day."

As per the laws prevalent in India, a person who attains the age of 18 years, is entitled to take a decision of his person and property rights. Judicial notice can also be taken that in pending proceedings, where rights/claims of minors are adjudicated, on attainment of majority, such minors are entitled to seek for discharge of guardianship and pursue the remedy on their own. Notice can also be taken that in respect of their rights in properties, minors can also challenge alienation/encumbrance, made by the guardian, on attainment of majority. As per Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution of India, all citizens have the right to move freely, throughout the territory of India. On attainment of age of 18 years, a citizen has a right to travel outside India also, unless it is reasonably restricted. Completion of ''18'' is the age fixed, to exercise right of franchisee, to have banking transaction, right to enter into any contract permissible in law.

In such a view of the matter, on this day, when Ushameena, who had attained the age of majority on 13.09.2014, asserted that she should be allowed to go free, to decide her further course of action, as she had attained majority, this Court cannot compel her, to go along with the petitioner.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Clauses 1 to 3, in paragraph 57 of the Hon''ble Full Bench Judgment in T. Sivakumar Vs. The Inspector of Police, Thiru. Anbu and Thiru. Samandan, , and contended that Dhakshinamoorthy/2nd respondent herein has no legal right to claim that custody of the detenue should be with him, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention, for the reason that in this petition, we are not deciding the inter se rights of the petitioner and respondent No. 2. We are only adverting to the right of the detenue, who had attained the age of 18 years, as on 13.09.2014 and considering the constitutional, statutory provisions, dealing with majority, and exercise of rights over the person and property, it is for the detenue to decide her course of action. Having regard to the attainment of majority, retention of the detenue in Vidiyal Home, Madurai, need not be continued. As the alleged detenue is a major, as on today, she is set at liberty, to decide her further course of action. Habeas Corpus Petition is closed accordingly.