High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 09 MAD CK 1468

T.Muthulingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr.

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench · Decided on 7 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J · B.Murugesan, J
CASE NUMBER
H.C.P.(MD) No.1135 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 269 words

[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]

The case of the petitioner is that his daughter Sownthariya, aged about 24 years, is missing from 21.08.2026. Since the petitioner was unable to trace her whereabouts, he gave a complaint before the respondent – Police on 22.08.2026 and based on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.332 of 2026 was registered under the caption “woman missing”. Since no further action was taken to trace the whereabouts of his daughter, the petitioner has come to this Court by filing the present habeas corpus petition.

2.

Mr.D.Venkatesh, learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents, on instructions submitted that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, a case in Crime No.332 of 2026 has been registered under the caption “woman missing” and during the course of investigation, it came to light that the alleged missing person has gone along with one Arul Selvan, son of Ganapathi of Potraiadi Village, and they got married and subsequently, they appeared before the respondent – Police and submitted that they are facing risk to their lives from the petitioner. Since the alleged missing person is aged 24 years, her detention cannot be said to be illegal and therefore, this habeas corpus petition is not maintainable.

3.

On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner is aged about 24 years and she got married to one Arul Selvan and therefore, the custody of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal. In view of the same, this habeas corpus petition is closed.