(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, directing the 3rd Respondent Police to secure and produce the corpus of Petitioner’s husband Mr. Ramalingam, aged about 36 years, and the petitioner’s minor son, Navith aged about 18 months, before this Hon’ble Court, and thereafter set them at liberty.)

Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.

1. One Mrs.Sujatha has instituted this habeas corpus petition seeking a direction to the police authorities to produce her husband Ramalingam (detenu) and minor son Navith (minor) aged about 18 months.

2. The police authorities have today produced both detenu before us.

3. We have heard Mr.A.K.Rajaraman, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.C.R.Malarvannan, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu for R1 to R4 and Mr.B.K.Sri Krishna for the detenu.

4. The facts are that, the petitioner and Mr.Ramalingam were married on 23.11.2019 and Navith was born on 24.1.2025. It appears that the petitioner did not go back to her matrimonial home and continued to reside in her parental home. In October 2025, petitioner admits before us, though this fact has not been disclosed in the writ affidavit, that she has married one Mr.Prabakaran.

5. Through all this, the minor continued to live with her. In end March, 2026, petitioner, Mr.Ramalingam, the minor and family members had undertaken some temple visits. In April 2026, it is the say of the detenu that the minor was entrusted to his care by the petitioner’s mother. He claims to have a video in support of the same.

6. In early June 2026, the petitioner and her mother have made efforts to take the minor back to their place and those efforts were rebuffed by the detenu on the ground that the minor had been entrusted to his care by them and hence he did not wish to return the minor to petitioner. According to the detenu, it was only in April 2026, that he was informed about the relationship of the petitioner with Mr.Prabakaran.

7. Though Mr.Ramalingam has been named as the detenu, the question of his illegal detention does not arise. The purpose of this HCP, is evidently for the petitioner to obtain back custody of the minor.

8. Seeing as the minor is aged around 1 and a half year (approx) as on date, and has been with the petitioner since his birth till April, 2026, we are of the considered view that it is not appropriate to separate the mother and child at this juncture.

9. Mr.Ramalingam is employed but claims to have his mother and other family members to take care of the child. Likewise, the petitioner says she is employed as a nursing tutor but has the support of her mother in the house. Hence, and having regard to the attendant circumstances, the custody of the child shall remain with petitioner for the present.

10. Mr.Ramalingam states that he has instituted OP No. 125 of 2026 seeking divorce and is also in the process of moving the Family Court with an application seeking custody of the child. The present arrangement, as enunciated in paragraph 9 above shall continue till such time orders are passed by the Family Court on the aspect of custody of the minor.

11. As the father should have sufficient time with the minor child, we direct the petitioner to ensure that she co-operates in the visitation of the father with the child, once a week. We do not wish to stipulate the date and time but leave it to the petitioner and Mr.Ramalingam to workout the details thereof.

12. Recording the above, we close this petition. Needless to say, the proceedings before the Family Court shall be decided independent of any of the observations that we have made in this order. No costs.