[Order of the Court was made by T.Mathivanan, J.] Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.M.A.Gouthaman, learned counsel on record for the third respondent and Mr.S.Mohanasundararajan, learned counsel on record for the fourth respondent.
2. In pursuant to the order dated 31.01.2017, this petition is listed today for hearing. In the order dated 31.01.2017, the detenue was directed to be kept in Dhanam Ladies Hostel, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 and the Inspector of Police, Egmore Police Station, Chennai – 600 008 as well as the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner (Law and Order), Triplicane, were directed to ensure that the detenue is kept free from any disturbances or any harm, either physically or mentally, either by the petitioner or by the respondents 3 and 4. By virtue of the direction of this Court as aforestated, the detenue was produced before this Court by the second respondent, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thuidyalor, Coimbatore.
3. Obviously, this petition came up for hearing before this Court on 23.08.2016. While so, the third respondent, who is none other than the father of the detenue, had appeared along with one Mrs.Vasanthamani and his close relatives viz., S.Gunasekaran, S/o.R.Sivasamy and O.Radha Krishnan S/o.Othimalai Gounder. The petitioner Mr.Tinagaran Puvanasan was also present.
4. On enquiry, the detenue had stated that she proposed to marry the petitioner and that there was no such marriage between them. She had also stated that her mother, who is the fourth respondent, was mentally ill for the past six months and therefore, she needed constant intensive treatment. Hence, she preferred to be with Mrs. Vasanthamani so as to take care of her mother. She had also stated that she would decide about her further course only after six months. Her statement was recorded. Ultimately, this Court had directed the Registry to list the matter on 01.03.2017 with the following directions:
i. The 3rd respondent, Palaniswamy and Mrs.Vasanthamani, shall appear before this Court on 01.03.2017.
ii. The detenue Miss.Vishnupriya shall also appear before this Court on the same day.
iii. The petitioner shall also appear before this Court on the same day.
iv. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudiyalor, Coimbatore is directed to make surprise visits to the house of Mrs.Vasanthamani to verify whether the detenue is kept free from any disturbances both physically and mentally and ensure her safety.
5. Though the Registry was directed to list the matter on 01.03.2017, it was advanced and listed on 31.01.2017 before this Court at the instance of Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the ground that by virtue of the interim order dated 23.08.2016, the detenue was to be produced before this Court and accordingly, this matter was taken up on that day. When the matter was taken up for hearing on that day, the detenue Vishnupriya was produced by Mrs.Karpagam, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudialur, Coimbatore. The petitioner Mr.Tinagaran Puvanasan was also present. When the Court made enquiry with the detenue, she had stated that while she was working in Singapore, she started loving the petitioner and accordingly taken a decision to marry him and necessary on-line application was also made before the concerned Marriage Registrar at Singapore and before the registration could take place, her parents viz., Respondents 3 and 4 had become aware of her relationship with the petitioner and therefore, they had raised their objection and on the pretext of the information that her grandfather had passed away, she was brought to Coimbatore and kept in illegal custody. She had also revealed that she was subjected to physical and verbal abuse and since she had fallen in love with the petitioner on her own volition, she wanted to go along with him. She had further stated that her Passport and other travel documents were destroyed by her parents and therefore, she intended to apply for an Emergency Passport, so as to enable her to go along with the petitioner to Singapore for the purpose of getting the marriage registered and start living with him as husband and wife.
6. On that day, i.e., on 31.01.2017, Mr.S.Prabhakaran, the learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr.Mohanasundararajan, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent had vehemently objected to let the detenue to go along with the petitioner for the reason, according to Mr.S.Prabhakaran, the petitioner is not a Malaysian National, but a Srilankan and that he is having bad antecedents and under the pretext of loving the detenue, he wants to gobble all the money lying in the bank deposits and managed to take a sum of Rs.40 lakhs out of the bank deposits. When this was brought to the knowledge of the parents of the detenue, viz., Respondents 3 and 4, in the interest of their daughter, they had brought her to Coimbatore. But, in fact, she was not kept in their illegal custody. Mr.Prabhakaran had also urged this Court to grant somemore time so as to enable him to file counter affidavit with supporting documents in the form of typed-set of documents. Accordingly, this matter was directed to be listed today and the detenue was also directed to be housed in Dhanam Ladies Hostel, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008, as stated in the opening paragraphs.
7. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the detenue was produced before this Court by the second respondent, Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thuidyalor, Coimbatore. On enquiry, the detenue had repeated her earlier version what she had told before this Court on 23.08.2016 and 31.01.2017. She has also reiterated her earlier stand that she was kept in illegal custody of her parents viz., respondents 3 and 4 and she was subjected to mental and physical harassment while she was staying in Singapore and she had also lodged a complaint before the concerned police officials in Singapore. Further she would state that she is qualified in B.E. Mechanical Engineering and requested to let her to go along with the petitioner Tinagaran Puvanasan.
8. But, Mr.Prabhakaran, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 and, 4 has submitted that the detenue is a mentally imbalanced girl and only for her interest, her parents have been urging to let her with their custody because the antecedents of the petitioner is not upto the mark. He has also argued that the petitioner is a Srilankan national and working in Malaysia and planned to use the detenue for making money. Further, he has contended that this Habeas Corpus Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is an abuse of process of Court without basic facts of the case. He has also contended that the petitioner is not the husband of the girl Vishnupriya and that on verification made by the respondents 3 and 4, it was found that the address given by the petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is vague and no such address was found in Singapore.
9. He has also submitted that the third respondent, being the father of the detenue, had personally verified and found that all the informations given by the petitioner in his affidavit are all false. The learned Senior counsel has also maintained that the educational qualification of the petitioner and his employment in the office of M/s.Flowserve Pte Ltd., at Singapore, are all false. He has further added that the identity and the educational qualification as well as the employment of the petitioner are all questionable and on verification, it is found that the information furnished by the petitioner in his affidavit are incorrect. Since the respondents 3 and 4 happened to be the parents of the detenue, they are duty bound to protect the welfare and interest of their daughter and therefore, he has strongly objected to let the detenue to go along with the petitioner. Mr.S.Prabhakaran, the learned senior counsel has also questioned the maintainability of this petition on the following two grounds:
i. Since the petitioner is a foreign national, he cannot directly come down and file a petition with his own affidavit, which itself is not admissible in law.
ii. The fourth respondent is mentally ill and seeking a direction against an insane person is barred by law and therefore, he has urged to dismiss the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
10. On the other hand, Mr.S.Sivakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner Mr.Tinagaran Puvanasan is a Malaysian national and the permanent resident of Singapore (SPR). He has added further that the petitioner has been working as an Engineer at M/s.Flowserve Pte. Ltd., According to Mr.Sivakumar, the detenue Vishnupriya is the wife of the petitioner and she was working along with the petitioner at M/s. Keppel Shipyard Limited as an Engineer (HULL) until the petitioner had recently switched over to M/s.Flowserve Pte. Ltd., from 03.05.2016. Mr.Sivakumar has also argued that, after coming to know about the love affairs between the petitioner and the detenue, the respondents 3 and 4 had subjected her to torture and they had not even allowed her to attend the work and she was also subjected to physical assault by branding on her both hands. Further, they had put pressure on her to resign her job and they had also destroyed her passport and other related documents. Owing to this reason, the detenue had lodged a complaint before the Singapore Police on 21.01.2015 and 23.02.2015. He has also added that the detenue had suffered a lot at the hands of the third respondent and relatives and urged this Court to let the detenue to go along with the petitioner.
11. We have considered the submissions made by Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned senior counsel for respondents 3 and 4 as well as by Mr.S.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also considered the submissions made by Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
12. Having taken into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it cannot be heard to say that the petition is not maintainable as argued by Mr.Prabhakaran, because the petitioner has mainly sought a direction as against the third respondent, being the father of the detenue, to produce the detenue Vishnupriya, who is said to be in his illegal custody. In his affidavit, the petitioner has not suppressed anything with regard to his domicile. In this connection, he has stated that he is residing at No.148, MEI Ling Street, 03-111/140148, Singapore and at present residing at Park Inn, No.37, Geetha Hall Road, Coimbatore and temporarily came down to Chennai for the purpose of filing this petition.
13. Keeping in view of the above facts, we do not find fault with the maintainability of this petition as argued by Mr.S.Prabhakaran. As aforestated, we have considered the statements made by the detenue and since she is a matured girl and attained majority and possessed with the qualification of Bachelor Degree in Mechanical Engineering, we are of the view that she is having every right to place her in the state of freedom and it shall not be curtailed unless there are reasons to be recorded. As guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, her personal liberty is to be protected.
Accordingly, the detenue Vishnupriya is set at her liberty, as per her wish and since, no further order is necessary, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed. If the detenue feels that she is insecure and apprehends danger at the hands of respondents 3 and 4, she is at liberty to approach the second respondent and the second respondent is also directed to provide necessary protection on the approach made by the detenue.
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes gpa Note: Issue order copy on 02.02.2017 To
1. The Commissioner of Police Coimbatore
2. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Thuidyalor, Coimbatore 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
[M.J. J.] [T.M.J.,] 02.02.2017
M.JAICHANDREN J.
AND T.MATHIVANAN, J.
gpa
H.C.P.No.1377 of 2016
02.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in