Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


P.Jeeva v. The Inspector of Police - H.C.P.(MD) No.113 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1266 (3 April 2007)


DATED : 03/04/2007





H.C.P.(MD) No.113 of 2007

P.Jeeva .. Petitioner


1.The Inspector of Police

Town Police Station


Pudukkottai District


3.Subedha .. Respondents

Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the first respondent to produce the petitioner's minor daughter P.Nancy Praveena, aged 17 years, who has been illegally detained by the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein before this Court and set her at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar

For Respondents : Mr.N.Senthurpandian

Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

Mr.C.Pandarasamy for RR2 and 3 :ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Jeeva has brought forth this petition.

2.According to the petitioner, her husband Paul Patrick was working in BSNL; that he died in the year 2000; that on compassionate ground, she was given appointment; that she was presently working over there; that her first daughter Nancy Praveena whose date of birth was 17.5.1990, was doing her +2 course at Rani Girls Higher Secondary School, Pudukkottai; that she was staying in her elder sister's house; that on 19.2.2007, she came to know that the second respondent with the help of the third respondent kidnapped her daughter; that she was only 17 years old, and thus, she is a minor; that on coming to know about the same, she gave a complaint to the first respondent on 20.2.2007; that a case came to be registered by the first respondent police in Crime No.44/2007 under Sec.366 of I.P.C. on 20.2.2007; but, she has not yet been secured; that she could not know the whereabouts of her daughter, and hence, it has become necessary to approach this Court with the petition for habeas corpus.

3.In the last occasion, notice was ordered to the respondents. The respondents 2 and 3 also appeared through Counsel. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

4.The alleged detenue Nancy Praveena has been produced before the Court. She is also enquired. According to her, she fell in love with the second respondent, which continued for the past three years, and she was living with her mother at Pallavaram, Madras, and the second respondent was also living at Pallavaram, and she was doing +2 course at Pallavaram, and on coming to know about the love affair, she was taken to the senior maternal aunt's house at Pudukkottai, where she was doing her course, and she informed the same to the second respondent, and he came over to Pudukkottai, and as per their plan, they went over to Mahajanapakkam, Kancheepuram, and got married on 23.2.2007, and thus, as on today, they are living as husband and wife. She further added that she is not ready to go with her mother, and she also entertained doubt as to her character, and hence, it would go against her welfare, and hence, she is not willing to go with her mother.

5.The statement of the minor girl is also recorded.

6.In appraisement of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that since she happens to be a minor, and she is also not willing to go with the mother in view of the reasons adduced by her, and now, a case has also been registered by the first respondent police, and it is also brought to the notice of the Court that Nancy Praveena is a Christian by faith and the second respondent is also a Mohammedan by faith, the custody of the minor girl could not be given to the second respondent though it is urged that they are living as husband and wife. Under the circumstances, she has got to be allowed to be in the Government Home till she attains majority.

7.Hence, the minor girl Nancy Praveena is directed to be kept in the Government Home, Chokkikulam, till she attains majority. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of.


1.The Inspector of Police

Town Police Station, Pudukkottai

Pudukkottai District

2.The Public Prosecutor

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.