Madras High Court
Ajithkumar Madhu vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 25 April, 2023
Bench: M.Sundar, M.Nirmal Kumar
H.C.P.No.558 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
H.C.P.No.558 of 2023
Ajithkumar Madhu .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem,
Tamil Nadu.
2.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem,
Tamil Nadu.
3.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
B-4 Annadanapatty Police Station,
Salem City, Salem,
Tamil Nadu.
4.Gopyal Ramayan
5.Manikandan Kumanan .. Respondents
Page Nos.1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.558 of 2023
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce
the person and body of the petitioner's girlfriend/lover XXXX, Daughter of
K.Gopal, aged 21 years who is under the illegal custody of 4 th and 5th
respondents before this Court and set her at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Thamizhanban
For Respondents
R1 to R3 : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
R4 : Mr.R.John Sathyan
for Mr.K.Balaji
R5 : Mr.R.John Sathyan
for Mr.S.Anburaja
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the previous listing on 18.04.2023.
2.Today, the absentee, petitioner, Mr.N.Thamizhanban, learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for Page Nos.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.558 of 2023 respondents 1 to 3 [official respondents], 4th respondent, Mr.K.Balaji, learned counsel for 4th respondent, 5th respondent, Mr.S.Anburaja, learned counsel for 5th respondent [To be noted learned counsel on record for respondents 4 and 5 are lead by Senior Counsel Mr.S.John Sathyan, he joined in a Video Conferencing platform, to be noted this is a hybrid hearing], jurisdictional Sub-Registrar Ms.Uma Devi [to be noted, jurisdictional Sub-Registrar is represented by Mr.John J.Raja Singh, learned Additional Government Pleader], Thiru.Devaraju, President, jpUr;rpuhgs;sp khtl;l kz;gho yhhp chpidahsh;fs; r';fk; and Mr.Manivannan, Manager, Cauvery Kalyana Mandapam are all before this Court.
3.In continuation of earlier proceedings, respondents 4 and 5 have filed separate affidavits and the same are before us.
4.We had the benefit of perusing the records, but it may not be necessary to dilate on the same in the light of paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of 4th respondent which reads as follows: Page Nos.3/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.558 of 2023 '4.I submit that after the marriage I have approached the registrar office at Woraiyur for registering the said marriage in accordance with law, but the personnel in the registrar office instructed me to get some documentary proof for the solemnisation of the marriage, since the marriage is solemnised in a house I could not produce any document, hence I have get prepared the marriage invitation and the marriage hall letter as if the marriage took place at Cauvery Kalyana Mandapam, Woraiyur and got the marriage registered as marriage Sl.No.TMR/Urayur/384/2022 dated 09.12.2022 in the office of the Registrar of Marriage, Woraiyur under the Tamil Nadu Registration of Marriage Act, 2009.'
5.Learned Senior Counsel who is instructed by learned counsel on record for respondents 4 and 5 also very fairly submitted that this was actions of an anxious father and therefore, a lenient view may please be taken. We express no opinion on this plea and leave it open to law to take its own course.
Page Nos.4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.558 of 2023
6.We had an interaction with the absentee today. The absentee reiterated what she had said in the earlier interaction i.e., that she wants to go with the petitioner. The absentee is clearly a major and she is entitled to make this choice. We find that in Crime No.93 of 2023, there is a hand written statement given by the absentee [statement dated 22.02.2023] to the same effect and a Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement given by the absentee before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 23.03.2023 [To be noted, the jurisdictional Magistrate is Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem]. To be noted, the absentee has taken the same stand in the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement also.
7.We find that this case is an eye opener as regards registration of marriages where the Registrar of Marriages is informed that a customary marriage was solemnized. It may be desirable to consider asking for photographs of the customary marriage. In any case, this is said only in a recommendatory tone and we leave it at that.
8.As regards the petitioner, we are informed that he is an Income tax Page Nos.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.558 of 2023 assessee and that he would be able to support the absentee economically for completing the course which now she is pursuing.
9.As it is the stated position of respondents 4 and 5 as well as President, jpUr;rpuhgs;sp khtl;l kz;gho yhhp chpidahsh;fs; r';fk; and Mr.Manivannan, Manager, Cauvery Kalyana Mandapam that customary marriage between the absentee and 5th respondent was never solemnized, much less on 04.12.2022, there is no disputed fact in this regard. As there are no disputed facts, we have no difficulty in exercising our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and saying that the marriage registration vide Sl.No.TMR/Urayur/364/2022 dated 09.12.2022 now stands nullified. In other words, the marriage registration is set aside. As this is habeas corpus legal drill, we do not propose to delve more into this aspect of the matter.
10.As we are concluding, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that some fear is entertained by the petitioner. Respondents 4 and 5 submit that they would not intercede or create any other difficulty for the petitioner Page Nos.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis H.C.P.No.558 of 2023 and absentee. However, we make it clear that the jurisdictional Police i.e., B-4 Annadanapatty Police Station, Salem District and E-2 Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy City shall remain live to the issue.
11.We drop the curtains on the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition. Before we do that, we return all the records given to us in a sealed cover with the learned Prosecutor with a request to have the same returned to the Officers concerned and the Officers concerned being appraised of this order which will be uploaded.
12.Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of as closed with the aforementioned observations and making it clear that the absentee would now go with the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.)
25.04.2023
Index : Yes / No
Speaking / Non-speaking
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
cse
Page Nos.7/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.558 of 2023
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem,
Tamil Nadu.
2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Salem City, Salem,
Tamil Nadu.
3.The Inspector of Police,
B-4 Annadanapatty Police Station,
Salem City, Salem,
Tamil Nadu.
4.The Inspector of Police,
E-2 Woraiyur Police Station,
Trichy City – 620 003.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.8/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
H.C.P.No.558 of 2023
M.SUNDAR, J.,
and
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.,
cse
H.C.P.No.558 of 2023
25.04.2023
Page Nos.9/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis