R. Suresh Kumar vs K.A. Kalavathi, K.M. Arumugham and The Inspector of Police

P. Sathasivam, J.—The petitioner by name R.Suresh Kumar has filed this petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent

K.A.Kalavathi, who is none else than his wife, to produce his male child by name Siddarth, aged about 4 1/2 years, in the Court and for further

direction to hand over the child to his custody.

In the affidavit filed in support of the above petition, the petitioner has stated that the first respondent is his wife and the second respondent is his

father-in-law. The petitioner married the first respondent five years ago and he was blessed through the first respondent with one male child by

name Siddarth, now aged 4 1/2 years, studying in Kinder Garden class, Don Bosco Matriculation School, Madras. They also have a female child

by name Mathumitha, aged about 2 1/2 years. According to the petitioner, on 08.11.2005, the first respondent left the house of the petitioner

along with the male child without any intimation. There is no dispute that the petitioner has not made any complaint against anyone including the

third respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing our attention to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, vehemently

contended that inasmuch the petitioner being father/natural guardian of the minor, he is entitled to the custody of the child and that this Court can

issue suitable direction to the first respondent for handing over the minor in favour of the petitioner. In support of the above contention, he relied on

a decision of this Court reported in Suresh Babu Vs. Madhu, and also a decision of the Kerala High Court in Vasudevan Vs. R. Viswalakshmi, .

Insofar as the custody/entitlement/right over the minor child is concerned, we are of the view that the said question cannot be gone into by this

Court, hearing Habeas Corpus Petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the competent Court/Forum to vindicate his grievance.

Inasmuch as even according to the petitioner, the child, aged about 4 1/2 years, is with the first respondent, who is none else than the mother of the

child, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner cannot be gone into by this court in this petition. It is made clear that the petitioner is free to

approach the appropriate forum to vindicate his grievance.

With the above observation, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.