Lavanya vs The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, & Ors.

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu namely two minor boys. Though the petitioner had filed a petition for guardianship and the same is pending before the concerned Court, suppressing the said fact, this HCP has been filed.

There has been lot of litigation between the parties namely the petitioner and the third respondent, her husband, which we need not refer to in this proceedings. We have questioned the petitioner, the third respondent as well as minor children, who were very clear in their views. However, we do not want to express anything in this order as it may impact the petition in DVOP, pending before the trial Court. Though the third respondent had filed petition for divorce, he would state before us that he has withdrawn the petition on the advice of the elders and senior members of their community. Upon withdrawal of the petition for divorce, the petitioner appears to have lodged a complaint before the Police under DV Act. Prima facie it appears to be a case of forum shopping and we would like to observe that petitioner should not unnecessarily drag the children in the proceedings or the disputes or differences she has with the third respondent. If that is the attitude of the petitioner, she would be failing in her duty as a mother.

The apprehension of the petitioner is that the children will be taken out of the country by the third respondent. The third respondent appeared before us and stated that he does not have visa nor job in the United States and he has no intention to take the children out of the country. He would add that petitioner, himself and the children were all in the United States and the petitioner initiated various proceedings in the United States and the third respondent opined that it was not conducive for the children to grow in such an atmosphere and had returned to India. The petitioner''s parents are stated to have brought the children and handed over them to the third respondent who stated to be raising the children for the past nine years as a single parent. The petitioner stated to have stayed in the United Sates for about a year. We placed on record all these statements made by the third respondent to give an overview as to how the dispute has been pending for a quite long number of years between the parties.

Thus we find there is no case of illegal detention but it is a clear case of forum shopping, where the petitioner having already moved every forum, has come forward with this case, alleging as if the children are in the illegal custody of the third respondent. Thus no grounds have been made to issue a direction in this habeas corpus petition and it is sufficient to record the statement given by the third respondent that he does not propose to migrate to Unite States nor take the children back.

With these observation this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.