Antony Dominic, J. Petitioner is the wife of the additional 8th respondent. Respondents 5 and 6 are her sister-in-law and her husband. The marital relationship of the petitioner and the 8th respondent is strained and they are living separately for the last several years. In her wedlock with the 8th respondent, she has given birth to Sri.Renjith Baby, who is stated to be 32 years. In the writ petition, she alleges that her son is being admitted in the hospital of the 7th respondent describing him to be a psychiatric patient. Though the writ petition was instituted with a pleading that her son has no mental disorder and is mentally and physically fit and that therefore his admission and treatment as an in-patient in the hospital of the 7th respondent amounts to illegal detention, subsequently, the petitioner has sought to modify that stand and now states that her son is a psychiatric patient and that he needs treatment, but not in-patient treatment. According to her, the in-
patient treatment against the will of the patient and at the instance of respondents 5 and 6 amounts to a case of illegal detention of her son and with that allegation she has filed this writ petition with a prayer for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.
2. On behalf of the 7th respondent, a case report of the detenu has been made available to us, a copy of which has also been produced as Ext.R8(e) to the counter affidavit filed by the 8th respondent. Reading of the report gives us the impression that the Doctor who treats the alleged detenu is a qualified person and that the detenu has been admitted and treated because he needs such treatment. As far as the 8th respondent, who has filed the counter affidavit is concerned, he also swears that his son is a psychiatric patient and needs treatment and that therefore only he has been admitted in the hospital and treated. Various allegations have been made against the petitioner and the details of the proceedings that are instituted by the parties before the Family Courts are also made available.
3. In so far as this writ petition with the prayer for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is concerned, we are not concerned about the marital relationship of the petitioner with the 8th respondent, but is only concerned with the question whether the alleged detenu is in illegal detention as alleged in the writ petition. The materials made available to us, particularly Ext.R8 (e), shows the detenu to be a patient who needs treatment and that it was therefore that he has been admitted in the hospital and is being treated. It is also evident that his admission in the hospital was at the behest of none other than the 8th respondent, his father. That apart, Ext.R8(e) also shows that the patient has been discharged from the hospital on 21/5/14. Therefore, the detenu is now with none other than his father. In such circumstances, we are not in a position to accept the case of the petitioner that the detenu is in illegal detention and at any rate the detenu is now with none other than the 8th respondent, his father and there arise no question of any illegal detention. We also record the fact that the detenu, his father and the petitioner were also present in Court.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE