T.Sakthivel vs The Superintendent of Police, The Inspector of Police and Malaisamy

S. Nagamuthu, J.—The petitioner claims that he is studying B.A. II year English Literature in Kammavar College, Theni District. One Abirami, daughter of Malaisamy, aged 19 years, is a classmate studying in the same class. According to the petitioner, he married her on 20.11.2011 at Theni Muthalamman Kovil and thereafter according to him, she was illegally detained from 27.11.2011 onwards by the third respondent, who is the father of the girl. With this allegation, he has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition. Today, the third respondent has made appearance in response to the notice sent by this Court. The third respondent along with his wife is present and they have produced their daughter Miss Abirami. On enquiries, Miss Abirami would state that except that she is the classmate of the petitioner, there is no other relationship between them. She would further state that there was never a marriage between her and the petitioner, as it is stated by the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that only with a view to bring disrepute to the family of the third respondent, and the girl, the petitioner, with oblique motive, has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition.

The petitioner is present represented by his counsel. He would state that there was marriage as stated in the affidavit, but there is no proof for the same. A photograph has been filed along with the Habeas Corpus Petition wherein the petitioner and the detenue are seen. But the detenue would state that this photograph was not really taken as it is portrayed in the photograph and that she does not know as to how this photograph has been made.

The learned counsel for the third respondent-Malaisamy, would submit that by means of some morphing, this photograph has been created. When a specific query was made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any evidence available to prove the alleged marriage, he would state that there is no evidence at all. The petitioner would state that no photograph was taken at the time of marriage.

The detenue, with choked voice, would state that except the fact that she is his classmate, she does not know anything more about the morphed photograph and she denies all the other allegations made by the petitioner. In view of the above, we are of the view that there is no illegal detention. We are also prima facie satisfied that there has been no marriage between the detenue and the petitioner. Therefore, the Habeas Corpus Petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.