Balamurugan vs Palanivel and another

Thanikkachalam, J.—This habeas corpus petition was filed by the petitioner for the production of the detenue Kavitha, aged about 22 years,

said to have been married by the petitioner. The first respondent is the father of the detenue. The first respondent was represented through his

counsel and he filed a counter-affidavit. According to the petitioner, he married the detenue, Kavitha on 12-5-1995 in Vadagasi Sripudhu Amman

Temple according to Hindu rites. In the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that no such marriage took place between his

daughter, the detenue and the petitioner herein. According to the first respondent the petitioner high-handed by and illegally stating that he married

the detenue and the petitioner is thereby blackmailing the family of the first respondent. Even during the pendency of this habeas corpus petition, it

is stated that the petitioner herein used to go to the house of the detenue threatened them that he would carry the detenue by force. According to

the first respondent, complaint was given to the police on this aspect.

As per the earlier directions of this Court, the detenue was produced before this Court by her parents and the detenue and her parents

categorically denied the marriage having taken place between the detenue and the petitioner.

When we asked the petitioner to produce evidence in support of the marriage alleged to have been taken place between him and the detenue,

he produced a certificate said to have been issued to him by the said temple officials. The said certificate appears to be not in proper form. There is

no witness to the alleged marriage. The first respondent produced a xerox copy of the letter written by the village headman stating that no such

marriage took place in the said temple between the petitioner and the detenue. When the petitioner is unable to prove the marriage between himself

and the detenue, it is not fair and proper on his part to file this habeas corpus petition for the production of the detenue. The attempt made by the

petitioner to secure the detenue appears to be illegal and controverting the well established customs. This appears to be a sort of blackmailing the

detenue and her parents in parting the detenue with the petitioner. If this kind of activities are encouraged, it would be a menace to the well

established societies and to the parents of the young girls in future. This kind of activities must be curbed in the initial stage itself.

Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that this habeas corpus petition was filed without any legal basis. Therefore, we dismiss this

habeas corpus petition. At the same time, we should also take note of the fact that by filing this habeas corpus petition and by subsequent

developments and activities, the petitioner has put the detenue and her family into great difficulty shame and caused mental agony and anguish by

making them to come to this Court several times. The petitioner also made them to suffer monetarily. Therefore, we direct the petitioner to pay a

sum of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to the detenue by way of damages and expenses. We are passing this order today so as to prevent

such kind of unsocial and illegal activities in future. If the petitioner fails to pay the said sum to the detenue within a period of eight weeks from

today, it is open to the detenue to approach this Court for further remedy.

Petition dismissed.