1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 22.09.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI
H.C.P.(MD) No.1118 of 2014
M.Senthil Muthu

.. Petitioner

versus
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Ammayanayakkanoor Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3. Mr.Balu,
Sub-Inspector of Police,
Ammayanayakkanoor Police Station,
Dindigul District.
4. Dr.Murugan,
Head Constable,
Ammayanayakkanoor Police Station,
Dindigul District.
5. The Inspector of Police,
Vilampatti Police Station,
Dindigul District.
6. A.C.Murugan

.. Respondents

2
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents to
produce the body of the petitioner's wife, Priyanga, aged 20 years,
before this Court and set her liberty.
For petitioner

: Mr.C.Mohamed Ajeesdheen

For respondents

: Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER
(Order of the Court is delivered by S. MANIKUMAR)

Claiming himself to be the lover of the alleged detenue,

writ of Habeas Corpus, has been filed by the petitioner. According to
the petitioner, both of them, belonged to different communities.
Initially, both their parents have given green signal, but subsequently,
there was objection.

However, they got married on 20.05.2014 in

Adivaaram Sir Vinayagar Kovil and thereafter, executed a Marriage

Urudhimoli Patthiram, in the presence of an Advocate-cum-Notary.
The alleged detenue has written many love letters to the petitioner.
She is a student of 2nd year in B.Com course.
studying Bachelor of Engineering.

The petitioner is

3
2.

It is the case of the petitioner that the detenue has been

restricted and she is not allowed to continue her studies.

On

13.08.2014,

to

when

the

petitioner

and

the

detenue

went

Ammayanayakanoor Police Station, Dindigul, they were asked to come

on the next day.

On 14.08.2014, respondents 4 and 5 herein,

threatened the petitioner and his parents, not to have any connection
with the alleged detenue. They threatened that they would foist case
against them.

According to the petitioner, detenue has been

subjected to illegal detention and hence, writ of Habeas Corpus

Petition has been filed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.

3.

Though the petitioner has enclosed a photocopy of an

agreement, executed by the petitioner and the alleged detenue,

before an Advocate-cum-Notary, as proof of marriage, solemnized
between them, on 20.05.2014, it cannot be treated as a document
issued by any competent authority under law. Certificate issued by a
Competent authority under the Marriage Registration Laws, can be
accepted, to have evidentiary value. Copies of messages, enclosed in

4
the typed set of papers, even taken for granted, as proof of
relationship between the parties, we are not inclined to consider the
same, as sufficient to arrive at the conclusion of detention.

4.

Marriage, recognised by law, with any certificate issued by

a competent authority can be considered, to create a right, to be

enforced against others.

In the case on hand, it is a document

executed before an Advocate-cum-Notary Public. Witnesses are only

for the execution of the said document.

5.

Secondly, according to the petitioner, the alleged detenue

is a B.Com 2nd year student. She is an adolescent. Even assuming that

there was any compulsion on the part of the parents, from
13.08.2014, till the date of filing of the present Habeas Corpus
Petition, ie., on 18th September, 2014, there is no material to indicate
that there was any detention. Even the alleged detenue herself would
have complained of. Messages enclosed in the typed set of papers do
not indicate any illegal detention. This Court deems it fit to extract
observation from the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of Kerala
High Court in Dr.Lal Parameshwar vs. Ullas N.N.Nadupurakkal and
others, reported in 2014 Crl.L.J. 1921.

5
"We agree that like in any other sphere of life,
there has been changes in the social and moral values.
Ours is a society which has recognised freedom to every
citizen. But then, these changes that we proudly talk
about, and the liberties that are guaranteed to our
citizens, cannot be stretched beyond limits nor can such
freedom be made weapons to destroy our fundamental
values or social establishments like families, which,
undoubtedly, concede authority on parents to advise and
guide their children. We cannot accept as a general
principle that the parents are in all circumstances, bound
to

concede

absolute

decisional autonomy to

their

children, even if they have attained majority and remain

helpless even in situations where their wards have taken
wrong and immature decisions, which will be disastrous
not only to the wards themselves but also to the family
itself. Such parental authority, except in cases such as
those pointed out by the Chancery Division and approved
in Sadanandan's case, should be out of bounds for a writ
court, because it is exercised for the ultimate benefit of
the ward. It may be to the dislike of the ward, who may
resist it and even turn hostile to the parents. But, such
immature reactions should not be allowed to influence our
judgment, since the ultimate aim and purpose of all these
exercise is the welfare of the ward. This Court therefore
should, except in extra ordinary situations, loathe
interference in cases where the natural parental authority

6
is exercised to the dislike of a lover or even the ward. For
these reasons, we find ourselves unable to follow the
judgment in Rajmohan's case (supra) and would follow the
earlier judgments."

6.

It is also worthwhile to extract the decisions considered in

the above reported judgment.

In Sreekesh v. Mohammed Asharaf

reported in (2003(1) KLT 397), on the facts and circumstances, at

paragraphs 7 and 8, a Hon'ble Division Bench of the Kerala High Court
held as follows:"7.It is seen that what has been produced as a proof
of marriage is Annexure C, which is only an unregistered
document. This document is titled as an agreement of
marriage. According to us, there is no valid marriage
between the petitioner and the third respondent. Can we
say that the custody of the girl with the parents is illegal.
The parents are entitled to have the custody of their
children and in no circumstances, it can be said to be
illegal, especially in the case of a girl. The parents have a
duty to put their children in a correct pathway in their
life. True that the third respondent has become major.
But that does not mean that no duty is cast upon the
parents to advise her on important matters. No doubt, the
third respondent says that she legally lived with the
petitioner. It is the case of the parents that the petitioner
would not be able to look after her. Here, we find that

7
there is no valid marriage. There is only an agreement in
writing. That has no legal validity. It is the responsibility
of the parents to see that the daughter is not cheated.
8.In the decision reported in Prasadhkumar v.
Ravindran (1992 (1) KLT 729) it was stated thus:
"It cannot be said that having control and supervision of
an aged girl by the parents will amount to illegal custody
warranting the issue of a writ by this Court. Parents will
naturally be interested in the welfare of their children
and

unless

there

are

extraordinary

circumstances,

normally they will be the proper persons to take decisions

concerning the career and future of their children.
Parents will be entitled to have control over the children,
especially if they are daughters, to protect them from the
vagaries of adolescence."

7.

For the reasons, stated supra, the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Petition is dismissed. No costs.

(S.M.K., J.) (V.S.R, J.)

22.09.2014
NB2/SKM

8
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND
V.S.RAVI, J.
NB2/SKM
To
1. The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Ammayanayakkanoor Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Vilampatti Police Station,
Dindigul District.

H.C.P.(MD) No.1118 of 2014

22.09.2014