AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Judgment Pronounced by V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—This is a very peculiar case where the petitioner/wife claimed the custody of her husband who
was once upon a time serving in the Indian Air Force. To begin with, the said wife made allegations that her marriage was a successful marriage
inasmuch as the said detenu, namely, S. Murali Krishnan was having good reputation and was loving husband. It is stated that a girl and a boy
were born out of the wedlock. The petitioner the proceeds to suggest that all of a sudden the wife who was temporarily at Madras came to know
that her husband on 4.5.1996 at about 7.00 A.M. had left his quarters to attend his official duty in Patiala and thereafter he did not return home.
This she came to know from his two colleagues. She rushed back and gave a report about the missing husband and came back to Madras. The
petition further suggests that in the third week of July, 1996, all of a sudden, her husband visited her and stayed in her parent''s house at Madras.
On being asked, he allegedly told his wife, the petitioner, that he was in a disturbed mental condition. The wife did not keep quiet and her uncle
conveyed the information about the missing husband to the Air Force Authorities who took the said husband in their custody in Madras. He was
initially taken to Air Force Station, Tambaram, where the father of the petitioner and his friend had met the said deserter. Thereafter, the wife did
not get any information regarding her husband though he had sent several communications in October and November, 1996 and January, 1997.
She only came to know that her husband escaped from the custody of the Air. Force Personnel and was not to be seen. Fearing for his life, the
wife filed this Habeas Corpus Petition.
Number of affidavits were filed in response to this Habeas Corpus Petition, wherein the Air Force took a stand that rigorous effort was being
made to trace out the said Murali Krishnan, who had escaped from the custody of the Air Force. It was suggested during the arguments that the
said Murali Krishnan was a deserter and was wanted by the Air force also. Ultimately even the affidavits of the persons from whose custody the
said Murali Krishnan had escaped came to be filed, they being one Labh Singh, Junior Warrant Officer, Air Force Station, Tambaram. AH the
while the search for this detenu was continued at the insistence of this Court. One other affidavit of Shivendra Singh also came to be filed, on which
apprehensions were expressed before this Court by the petitioner/wife that probably the two had eliminated the said Murali Krishnan and that he
was murdered for oblique reasons. Ultimately by an affidavit dated 21.6.99 the petitioner also sought for the articles belonging to the petitioner and
her husband which were in Patiala and the petitioner had ultimately received all her articles. The petition was kept pending in view of the inability on
the part of the Air Force Authorities to trace out the said. Sergeant Murali Krishnan. However, it came to be reported by the counsel for the
petitioner in a very fair manner that they had come to know of the address of the detenu and that the Air Force should try to apprehend the detenu
at that place. In answer to that it seems that some efforts were made by the Air Force as they themselves wanted the custody of the said Sergeant
Murali Krishnan and ultimately today an affidavit has been filed on record by group Capt. V.K. Yajurvedi to the effect that as per the directions of
this court sincere efforts were made to find out the whereabouts of Sergeant Murali Krishnan and it came to the notice of the Air Force Authorities
that he was working as a Helper at Sree Meenakshi Sundaram Textiles, MS Puram, Tirupur - 641 601 from 12.1.2000 to 3.2.2000 and
thereafter he has been working at K M S Textile Processing Mill, 169/1A Mukkan Thottam, Kulathupudur, Tirupur. The affidavit further goes on
to say that the confirmation reports have also been obtained by the Indian Air Force. The affidavit goes to say that the Officials of these two
establishments have identified Sergeant Murali Krishnan from the photograph carried by the representative of the respondents and that the said
detenu had not disclosed the real state of affairs regarding the marital status etc. to his employees. In support of this affidavit the Air Force
Authorities have filed number of documents including the statements of the Officers of the two establishments as also the statement of one
Palaniswamy, the owner of the house where the detenu allegedly lived.
This affidavit has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
From all these affidavits and the materials, one thing is certain that Sergeant Murali Krishnan who had escaped from the custody of the Indian
Air Force is not presently in the custody of the Indian Air Force nor is the Indian Air Force responsible for his disappearance and it appears that
for whatever reasons which may be known to Murali Krishnan alone the said Sergeant Murali Krishnan has made himself scarce. Once it is
established that the Indian Air Force is not responsible for his disappearance nor is the said detenu in their custody illegally or otherwise the
purpose of the petition fails and this petition itself becomes infructuous. The unfortunate lady, the petitioner herein has her remedies against her
husband which she is free to take. So also the Indian Air Force has its own remedies and actions, within the four corners of law available against
the said Murali Krishnan which it is free to take. Fortunately the lady has already been provide with all the household articles which were left by
Murali Krishnan at Patiala. The Air Force authorities would now proceed to determine about any pension, etc. to be made available to the said
wife after taking action against the said Murali Krishnan, but at this stage the petition becomes infructuous and is disposed of. Consequently the
H.C M.Ps. are also closed.
The court appreciates the efforts taken by the Air Force Authorities as also the very fair stand taken by the petitioner and her counsel. The
Court wants to put this appreciation on record.