| |
CDJ 2026 MHC 2344
|
| Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras |
| Case No : HCP No. 447 of 2026 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR.(MRS.) JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN |
| Parties : V. Neeraj Sen Versus The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: M. Illiyas, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1 & R2, R. Muniyapparaj, Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by N. Narkeeran, R3, R4, G. Krishnamurthy, Advocates. |
| Date of Judgment : 25-03-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Comparative Citation:
2026 MHC 1192,
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations / Sections Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
2. Catch Words:
- Habeas Corpus
- Detention
- Voluntary residence
- Marriage
3. Summary:
The petition under Article 226 sought a writ of habeas corpus to compel the respondents to produce the petitioner’s wife, alleging she was being detained by her family. The detenue appeared via video‑conference, denied any coercion, and affirmed she was voluntarily staying at her parental home. The Court examined the voluntariness of her residence, noting her age of 21 years. Concluding that there was no illegal detention, the Court held that the petition lacked merit. The matter was closed, leaving the parties to resolve their marital issues independently, and no costs were awarded.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to produce the petitioner’s wife Mrs. Santhosh, F/A-21 years, Wife of Mr.V.Neeraj Sen, Daughter of Tarachand Borana before this Honble Court and to set her at liberty.)
Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.
1. This petition is filed seeking production of Santhosh (detenue), whom the petitioner states, he has married on 27.06.2025. R3 and R4 are the father and brother of detenue.
2. At the hearing on 11.03.2026, the detenue had appeared before us on video conferencing and we had directed her to be present in Court on 17.03.2026, and thereafter on 23.03.2026, owing to her non-appearance on 17.03.2026.
3. We have conversed with both the petitioner and the detenue in the Court on 23.03.2026, and today, where the matter is posted in Chambers. The detenue denies pressure or coercion by R3, R4 or any other family members, and states that is voluntarily residing in her parental home.
4. The petitioner, however, would persist stating that it is on account of the pressure exerted by R3, R4 and other family members of the detenue, that she is residing with her parents. He would submit that being married, she wishes to reside with him, but is being detained by her parents and other family members, against her will.
5. We have expressly asked the detenue if she is being detained against her will and her response is categorically in the negative. She is aged 21 years, and in a petition seeking Habeas Corpus, we are only to determine if the allegations of illegal detention are proper.
6. Since the detenue confirms that she is voluntarily staying at her parental home, and having regard to her age, we conclude that, she is not being detained against her wishes and is voluntarily residing with her family members. For the purpose of this petition, this conclusion would suffice.
7. We leave it to the petitioner and detenue to work out their differences in the marital life.
8. Recording the aforesaid, this habeas corpus petition is closed. No costs.
|
| |
