HCP/1988/2026 of Durgadevi Vs State Represented by Superintendent of Police on 27 October 2026

ORDER

(made by A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J.) Seeking a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to produce her daughter and son viz. Thanvika, aged 9 years and Thaswanth, aged 7 years, respectively, before this Court and hand over them to her custody, the petitioner has filed the present habeas corpus petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she got married to Sathishkumar, third respondent herein, on 29.06.2015 and through the wedlock, she begot two children viz. Thanvika, aged 9 years and Thaswanth, aged 7 years; thereafter, due to matrimonial discord, she estranged from the third respondent and went to her natal home along with her children; while so, the third respondent forcibly took the children from her and is keeping them in illegal custody. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite her complaint to the second respondent police, no effective steps were taken to secure her children and therefore, she has come up before this Court by way of this habeas corpus petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the mother of the children and they were all along with her and the third respondent had forcibly taken their custody.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the children were all along in the custody of Rajeshwari/mother of the petitioner and the petitioner, at no point of time, took care of them. He further submitted that it is true that the petitioner got married to the third respondent on 29.06.2015 and the children were born to them, but, subsequently, the petitioner developed friendship with someone else leaving the children with the third respondent.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner is living elsewhere and the children were in the custody of their maternal grandmother Rajeshwari and Rajeshwari herself has handed over the custody of the children to the third respondent.

6. We enquired Rajeshwari/mother of the petitioner, who is present before this Court and she completely endorsed the above submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

7. We find that the custody of the children with their father, who is a natural guardian, cannot be said to be illegal for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

8. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as an interim arrangement, the petitioner may be permitted to visit her children, in response to which, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the third respondent has no objection in the petitioner alone visiting the children, because, in the previous instances, the petitioner visited the children along with her friend and they created ruckus, pursuant to which, a complaint was lodged before the Uthiyur Police Station and an enquiry was also conducted in C.S.R.No.58 of 2026.

9. In view of the above submissions, as an interim and temporary arrangement, the petitioner alone is permitted to visit her children on every Sunday between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon at the third respondent's residence.

With the above observations and directions, this habeas corpus petition stands closed. The observations made in this order are only for the limited purpose of disposing of this petition. The parties are at liberty to work out their remedy with regard to custody before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law. (A.D.J.C.,J.) (B.K.,J.) 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsd To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur District.

2. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J. AND B.KARTHIKEYAN J. nsd HCP No. 1988 of 2026 27-10-2026