P. Rajarathinam vs State and R.K. Murthy

M. Chockalingam, J.—Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mr. Rajarathinam has brought forth this petition for the production of the detenue wife before this Court.

The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the third respondent and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner and his wife the alleged detenue are present before the Court.

The case of the petitioner is that the marriage took place in the year 2004; that a female child was born; that now the child is 4 1/2 years old; that the alleged detenue has developed intimacy with the third respondent who was her former lover; that the child is also in the illegal custody of the fourth respondent, the father of the alleged detenue his wife; that a complaint was given against the third respondent; that a case has been registered in Crime No. 1195 of 2008 on 24.12.2008, under Sections 294(b), 498 and 506(i) of IPC against the third respondent; that on investigation, charge sheet has been laid, and the matter is now pending trial before the Court of criminal law.

The alleged detenue Baby Kumari wife of the petitioner, is present before the Court. She is enquired. According to her, the marriage took place on 7.6.2004, and a female child was born on 4.1.2006, and the child is actually put in Pre-K.G., and it is in the custody of her mother at Bangalore, and since she is living separately in Tuticorin and working in a Software Company, she could not take care of the child properly, and hence the child''s custody is left with her mother, who has been taking care of the child and put the child in education, and all the allegations found in the affidavit are flatly denied.

The statement of the alleged detenue is recorded. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered in these proceedings. As far as the first allegation regarding the conduct of the alleged detenue is concerned, she denies flatly. Now, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of the Court that a case has already been registered against the third respondent, and it is now pending before the Court of criminal law.

As far as the custody of the child is concerned, admittedly, the child is 4 1/2 years old. The alleged detenue the wife of the petitioner, would submit that she is living separately and working in a Software Company at Tuticorin, and therefore, she could not pay attention on the child, and the child is actually in the custody of her mother at Bangalore and put in education studying Pre-K.G. Under the circumstances, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the child is actually in the illegal detention of the fourth respondent, his father in law, does not have any force at all. However, if he is advised so, he can go for restitution of conjugal rights so far as wife is concerned, before a Court of civil law. Equally for the custody of the child, he can take appropriate proceedings before the Court of civil law. As far as the present request of the petitioner in this petition is concerned, the same does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of.