High CourtsDivision Bench

S.Murugan vs Superintendent Of Police And Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 17 March 2026 · Citation: (2026) 03 MAD CK 0967

HON’BLE JUDGES
N. Anand Venkatesh, J · P.Dhanabal, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No. 335 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 525 words

N. Anand Venkatesh, J

1.

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first and second respondents to produce the body or person of the detenue, namely, Bhavani, who is the wife of the petitioner and who had gone missing along with their two children, aged about 3 ½ years and 2 years respectively.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that he was married to one Bhavani, and out of the marriage, two children were born, who are now aged about 3 ½ years and 2 years respectively. All of a sudden, from 06.03.2026 onwards, the detenue has gone missing along with the two children. In spite of best efforts, the petitioner was not able to trace the whereabouts of the detenue and two children.

3.

In view of the above, the petitioner gave a complaint to the second respondent and the second respondent based on the same, registered a 'Woman missing FIR' in Crime No.58 of 2026 on 07.03.2026.

4.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent is not taking effective steps to find the whereabouts of the detenue and that there is a grave danger to the detenue and two children in the hands of the third respondent. It is under these circumstances, the present Habeas Corpus Petition came to be filed before this Court.

5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the detenue seems to have developed an illicit relationship with the third respondent and she has gone along with the third respondent. While being so, she also took away the children.

6.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is more concerned about the interest of the two children, who are aged about 3 ½ years and 2 years respectively and therefore, the second respondent must be directed to produce the detenue as well as his two children.

7.

Insofar as the detenue, who is the wife of the petitioner is concerned, she seems to have developed a relationship with the third respondent. Therefore, if she chooses to go along with the third respondent, there is nothing much that can be done in a Habeas Corpus Petition and the petitioner has to necessarily work out his remedy gainst his wife before the concerned Court. However, this Court is more concerned about the two children, who have been taken away by the detenue.

8.

In view of the above discussion, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to find the whereabouts of the detenue and two children and they shall be produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam as expeditiously as possible. On the date of production of the detenue and the two children, the petitioner shall be put on notice. The learned Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the detenue. Insofar as two children are concerned, the learned Judicial Magistrate shall talk with them and ascertain from them and proceed further to take necessary decision in accordance with law. A report shall also be sent to this Court in this regard.

9.

This Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of in the above terms.