AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Judgment pronounced by S. Jagadeesan, J.—The petitioner is the father of the girl Saritha (a) Valli. The grievance of the petitioner is that his
daughter had been kidnapped forcibly by the fourth respondent Arvamudhu and is being detained by him against her wish.
Today, the girl Saritha (a) Valli as well as the fourth respondent have appeared before this court. The petitioner and his brother are also present.
The elder brother of the fourth respondent is also present. As the age of the girl is 17 years and 9 months, being a minor, we were compelled to
enquire all the persons in order to find out a solution. The girl is very adamant and without any hesitation, has replied that she married the fourth
respondent Arvamudhu and is living with him at Trichy. The fourth respondent is employed in carpentry work and could able to maintain her and
both are living together happily. She is not willing to go along with the petitioner her father.
In fact, the paternal uncle of the girl Saritha wants to have a discussion with her. We have heard the matter in the chamber and allowed him to
have a discussion with her. The girl Saritha (a) Valli is not inclined to have any cordial discussion with her paternal uncle. At a stage, we ourselves
felt bad that the feelings of the paternal uncle should not be wounded. Hence, we stopped further discussion in order to give a quietus to the
matter.
We have also enquired the elder brother of the fourth respondent by name Loganathan, who is residing at E24, P&T, Quarters, Vysarpadi,
Madras-39. He said that his parents are in the village, looking after the lands and one of his brother in assisting them. He is living in the above
address and before the incident, the fourth respondent was living in Saidapet by taking a room for rent. In fact, the parents as well as himself were
not aware about the incident. Only on coming to know that the police are in search of the fourth respondent he also made an attempt to locate the
fourth respondent and ultimately, able to contact him. So far as he is concerned, his family has no objection for the marriage of the fourth
respondent with the detenue Saritha (a) Valli. Now that the marriage between the fourth respondent and the Detenue was completed, he said that
his family will take care of the Detenue and as such, the fourth respondent and the detenue need not be separated.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that being a minor and still there are three more months for the detenue to attain
majority, she can be compelled to go along with the petitioner, as she has no independent discretion. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, even
though supported this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner however intimately putforth that in case the Court has any doubt with
regard to the genuineness on the part of the petitioner to keep the custody of the detenue, she can be sent to a home in the city itself for the short
period of three months and after attaining the majority, she can be permitted to join the fourth respondent.
We are not inclined to send the detenue either along with the petitioner her father or to the home, knowing fully well as to what would be the
result of the same. The detenue herself expresses the apprehension that she will be killed by her family members on the parents side, if she goes
back to the family. Her parents will not agree for the proposal of the marriage with the fourth respondent even at a later point of time. There will be
an attempt on their part not only to separate the detenue and the fourth respondent, but also there will be a compulsion on her that she should
marry the person of their choice.
When the detenue expresses such an apprehension, we are of the opinion that it will be unsafe to entrust the custody of the Detenue to the
petitioner herein or to his brother. Even though the detenue is a minor and there are three more months for her to attain the majority, considering
the short period for attainment of majority, we feel that it is better to allow the detenue to go along with the fourth respondent, especially
considering the promise given by his elder brother to look after them carefully. When, in all aspects, it would be safe to entrust the detenue with the
custody of the fourth respondent and his brother we have no hesitation to do the same.
Hence, considering the over all circumstances, as well as satisfying ourselves after examining all the parties concerned, we are of the opinion that
the detenue Saritha (a) Valli is not under any illegal custody and the fourth respondent has not detained her against her wish.
Hence, this petition is dismissed.