AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Parameswari has brought this petition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus.
The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into the affidavit in support of the petition.
Pending this petition, MP (MD) No. 1 of 2009 has been filed by one G. Santrika, an activist, to implead her as party to the proceedings.
The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor with regard to the allegations made.
The case of the petitioner is that her daughter Suganya born on 24.6.1993, who studied upto 10th Standard, was staying with her; that the
second respondent one Pradeep, the son of the respondents 3 and 4, residing in the opposite house, forcibly took her on 23.11.2008 from her
lawful custody by deceitful means, and hence she lodged a complaint before the first respondent police; that a case came to be registered in Crime
No. 363 of 2008 against the second respondent; that the girl was secured along with the second respondent and produced before the Court; that
the Judicial Magistrate concerned while enlarging the second respondent on bail, recorded the statement made by the girl that she was being
harassed by her mother, and under the circumstances, she must be in the custody of the respondents 3 and 4 since they assured for their marriage;
but, the custody was handed over to the mother on her undertaking that she will not solemnize the marriage of the girl till she attains majority; that
while the matter stood thus, again she was forcibly taken by the second respondent on 31.12.2008; that a complaint was given; but, no case has
been registered yet, and under the circumstances, she was compelled to file this petition before this Court.
When the matter was taken up in the last hearing, time was taken by the State for the production of the minor girl. Accordingly, she is produced
before this Court this day. Pending the proceedings, one Santrika, an activist, has made a petition to implead herself to the proceedings.
This day, the petitioner is present. The girl is produced. The said activist who seeks impleadment, is also present.
The intervening circumstance which is brought to the notice of the Court is that after the constitution of State Women Commission, proceedings
were initiated by the girl complaining of the harassment made by her mother, and she was also summoned to appear, and the proceedings are
pending in Case No. 366/WC/09. Pending the same, according to the girl, now she is under the care and custody of the said activist, on the
strength of which the said activist has brought MP No. 1/2009 for impleadment.
The Court enquired the girl. According to her, she was born on 4.10.1990 and thus, she is a major, and her mother, the petitioner herein,
compelled her for prostitution to which course she was not amenable, and apart from that, she made arrangement of her marriage with a man aged
46, to which she was also not amenable, and then she escaped the custody, and the second respondent has nothing to do, and further as on today,
she is now staying with the said activist who is taking care of her, and hence orders could be passed so that she could be with her.
According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, all these allegations made against the petitioner are thoroughly false, and in order to escape
from the mother, who has more concern about her life, she has made such allegations.
The learned Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 would submit that they have no role to play in the entire episode.
As far as the activist is concerned, the learned Counsel would submit that she is a social activist; that the alleged detenue Suganya is known to
her for a long time; that she is also attached to her; that under the circumstances, she could exercise more care over her and maintain her, and
hence she could be allowed to be impleaded as party and suitable orders have got to be passed.
The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
At the outset, it has to be pointed out that the date of birth of Suganya is 24.6.1993 as per the birth certificate and thus, it would be quite
evident that she has not attained majority. Now, the petition for impleadment filed by the activist has got to be rejected for the simple reason that
she is in no way related to the girl Suganya or merely because she is known to her or acquainted in the past, her custody cannot be handed over to
her. Thus, she is an utter stranger to the party in proceedings. Her presence, in the considered opinion of the Court, is not at all necessary, and
hence her request is rejected.
Insofar as the grievance ventilated by the minor Suganya that her mother is pressurizing her for prostitution, and she even went to the extent of
giving her in marriage to a man of 46 years merely for money sake, and it was only after wealth, this Court after taking into consideration the said
statement made by the girl, is of the view that it would not be fit or proper to leave the custody of the minor with Parameswari, the petitioner
herein, though she happened to be the natural guardian. That apart, till she attains majority, she has got to be properly taken care of, and after her
majority only, she could take a correct decision in respect of her life. In such circumstances, the Court feels that it would be fit and proper to leave
the custody of the girl Suganya in the Government Home.
Therefore, in the light of what is stated above, the girl Suganya is directed to be kept in the Government Women Home, Chokkikulam,
Madurai, till she attains majority. The Warden of the Home is also directed to file a report once in two months as to the welfare of the minor
Suganya. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of. M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is dismissed.