(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the 1st and 3rd Respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue/Husband Mr.Edwin George @ Edwin George Vanderputt, S/o.Edward Vanderputt, aged 35 years before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty.)

Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.

1. One Kavitha has instituted this Habeas Corpus Petition alleging that her husband Edwin George @ Edwin George Vanderputt (detenu) has been forcibly admitted in R3, which is a de-addiction centre, by her mother-in-law / R4.

2. According to the petitioner, when she tried to contact the detenu, she was prevented from doing so and hence, legitimately apprehended that detenu has been under illegal detention. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before R2 which has been registered in C.S.R.No.0369 of 2026 on 11.07.2026. Despite the same, since there was no progress in the matter, she has instituted the present petition.

3. We had issued notice to R3 and R4. The detenu and R3 are represented by counsel and we have interacted with the petitioner and the detenu. We do not however, have the benefit of inputs from R4, as she is yet to be served.

4. The detenu is categoric that he had been manually forced into admission in R3 Foundation. There he was practically in illegal detention as he has not been permitted to leave the premises. He has been given medication by the Doctors there, was unaware of where he had been taken, and though he had signed the admission forms, since he has no knowledge of Tamil, he was not aware of the implications of his signature.

5. He would plead illegal detention and attribute it to a domestic dispute relating to jewels belonging his wife/the petitioner that he had wanted to take from his mother’s house. He alleges that his mother had orchestrated the entire event and that he must be discharged from R3 at the earliest. Thus in effect, he supports the case of the petitioner.

6. We have heard learned counsel and interacted with the petitioner and R3.

7. The status of the divorce filed by R3 reveals that there was a compromise on 23.02.2026. The matter has been listed five times thereafter, under the caption ‘await reports’ and ‘evidence’. It is thus evident that the compromise has not fructified as on date.

8. We also do not find it credible that the detenu would have been detained against his will, that he was unaware of where he was being taken and the implications of his signature on the hospital documents. To be noted that, he is presently under investigation in FIR registered in Crime No.231 of 2026 in R2 police station under the provisions of NDPS Act and is presently out on bail.

9. Coming to the procedure followed by R3 learned counsel for R3 has has furnished a copy of the records of the detenu there. On a peripheral perusal of the records we find that there has been an assessment by a Psychiatrist and an admission form has been filled in, containing the details of the patient (detenu). The detenu has, to a pointed query from us, identified the signature in that form as his own.

10. Admittedly, the detenu is 36 years old. There remains little else to be said in these circumstances, particularly since he is categoric about the fact that he had been detained in R3 Foundation against his wishes. In light of the same, let him make a request to R3 to be discharged, which may be considered by R3 in line with the procedure followed by them.

11. As regards the petitioner’s allegation that she has not been permitted to meet the detenu, which is the basis on which this Habeas Corpus Petition has been instituted, we find that, in the in-take form, under the field ‘marital status’ of the patient, the status indicated is ‘divorced’. This is perhaps the reason why.

12. With this, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed.