High CourtsDivision Bench(2006) 06 MAD CK 0147

V. Manoharan vs State by Inspector of Police, Commissioner of Police and N. Aswin Kumar

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 June 2006

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Dhanapalan, J · P. Sathasivam, J
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 336 of 2006

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

15 paragraphs · 302 words

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner, by name, V. Manoharan has filed this petition seeking production of his daughter Devika before this

Court and set her at liberty.

2.

According to the petitioner, her daughter has been detained by the third respondent. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor on instruction informs that on 30.03.2005, the detenue Devika and the third respondent N. Aswin Kumar married and also

registered their marriage. He also produced xerox copy of the Marriage Registration Certificate issued by the competent authority. In addition to

the same, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also produced copy of the proceedings of the Family Court, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,

which shows that the detenue and the third respondent filed I.A. No. 428 of 2006 in FCOP. No. 276 of 2006, praying for an order of injunction

restraining the respondents 1 to 4 therein from interfering with the matrimonial lives of the petitioners and defer them from causing any hurdles and

obstruction in the smooth running of their marital life till the disposal of the main petition. The first respondent in that petition is one Manohar, who is

the petitioner in this petition and also father of the detenue Devika. Further, it shows that by order dated 25.04.2006, the Family Court at

Hyderabad granted interim injunction and posted the case to 13.06.2006 for further orders.

3.

In the light of the information furnished by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the order passed by the Family Court at Hyderabad,

wherein the petitioner has been impleaded as first respondent, we are of the view that no further adjudication is required in this petition.

The petitioner is free to contest the application, which is pending before the Family Court at Hyderabad, if he so desire.

With the above observation, this petition is closed.