Madras High Court
M.Senthil Muthu vs The Superintendent Of Police on 22 September, 2014
Bench: S.Manikumar, V.S.Ravi
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
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. The petitioner is studying Bachelor of Engineering.
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, when the petitioner and the detenue went to 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 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.
"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 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 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.
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.