AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—Invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court one R. Dinaharan has brought-forth this Petition before this Court.
The grievance of the petitioner is that a marriage took place between the alleged detenu and him at Palaiyur on 13.11.2005 and his wife was
forcibly taken by the respondents 2 and 3 and they are keeping his wife under illegal custody and a complaint was given to the first respondent
police but no steps have been taken in the matter. Hence, he was constrained to file this Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court.
Pursuant to the order of notice in this petition, the detenue was produced by the police before this Court. She was enquired. According to her, a
marriage took place as stated above and in the past five months, there was disturbance in their matrimonial house and since she was cruelly treated
by her father-in-law and mother-in-law took a decision to commit suicide and then she went to her sister''s house where she was advised not to
take such an extreme step and eventually, she went to her parents house. The allegation of illegal custody by her parents are nothing but false and
with a view to come out on the clutches of law, such allegations are made.
After hearing the detenue that due to matrimonial disturbance, she left the matrimonial house and that the allegations made in the petition are
false, the Court is of the considered opinion that, it is a vexatious petition and it is a fit case where costs could be imposed on the petitioner but the
learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that apprehending that his wife is under illegal custody of the 2nd and 3rd respondents,
as the first time, the petitioner has come forward with this petition and a stern warning would be sufficient to the petitioner. Accordingly, the
petitioner is warned and this Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.