AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.V.Karthikeyan, J
The third respondent is not necessary to examine the issues raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition. Suo motu, the third respondent is deleted as respondent.
A complaint had been lodged by the petitioner on 10.10.2025 alleging that her husband has been missing on and from December 2021. This complaint had been lodged before the second respondent. However, in June 2022, after December 2021, the petitioner herein had given a complaint before the third respondent/All Women Police Station, Kottaipattinam that her in-laws created rift in the marital life. Now she had given a complaint that her husband was missing.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that the third respondent had examined the veracity of the said complaint, but even then, the husband did not turn-up. But the petitioner's in-laws had stated that they would not interfere with the marital life. Even in the complaint dated 10.10.2025, the thrust is only that the husband is neglecting the family of the petitioner and roaming around listening to his relatives.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who takes notice for the respondents, may take necessary instructions from the second respondent and file a status report.
Call the matter on 25.11.2025. The Registry to carry out necessary amendment striking out the third respondent from the array of parties.