AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Regupathi, J.—The Petitioner is the son of the detenue. The allegation is that while the Petitioner was staying in United States, the
detenue, who was residing in the ancestral home at Aruppukottai, was taken by R4 to R6 and with a view to grab the property of the detenue
those Respondents were illegally keeping her under their custody. The complaint lodged with the second Respondent did not yield any result,
hence, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed before this Court.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the fourth Respondent along with others are keeping the detenue under illegal confinement.
Per Contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the Petitioner, leaving her old mother aged about 85 years alone at Aruppukottai
left for United States and since she fell sick, the fourth Respondent, being a medical practitioner, took her to the hospital of R-7 and gave
treatment; thereafter, she was kept in the Old-age Home run by R-8. R-5 is none else than the sister of the detenue and R-4 and R-6 are the
husband and son respectively of R-5. The detenue was later admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for treatment and she expired
on 25.09.2008. Since the detenue was forwarded from the Old-age Home, the dead body was handed over to the eighth Respondent, who
informed the wife of the Petitioner as well as the fourth Respondent and the deceased was cremated on 25.09.2008. Under such circumstances,
the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed before this Court.
We have perused the materials available on record and carefully considered the rival submissions made.
It is very unfortunate that the Petitioner, living with all comforts in the United States, failed to take care of his old mother aged about 85 years.
He seems to be an irresponsible son, who, on returning back to India, without even knowing the death of his mother, has filed the present petition.
The mother was left unattended and living alone at Aruppukottai and it is the fourth Respondent who took care of her, gave treatment and also
admitted her in the Old-age Home. It is too hard to believe the allegation that the detenue was taken into custody by the fourth Respondent for the
purpose of grabbing the property. If there is any property dispute between the Petitioner and the fourth Respondent, the Petitioner could have
approached the appropriate forum and by filing the present Habeas Corpus Petition, he has wasted the valuable time of this Court as well as
misused the Government Agency. We are of the considered opinion that a false affidavit has been been filed in the name of Habeas Corpus
Petition on 06.10.2008 by that time the detenue/mother of the Petitioner was no more. It seems that the wife of the Petitioner was informed
through R-8 about the death of the detenue even on 25.09.2008 i.e. before filing of the present Habeas Corpus Petition by the Petitioner.
Strangely, in the petition, instead of his beloved mother, the Petitioner concentrated more on the properties left by her. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Habeas Corpus Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.