HCP(MD)/1358/2026 of J.Buslies Kanmani Vs The State of Tamilnadu on 27 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.Nirmal Kumar J.) The petitioner, being the mother of the detenu/minor daughter, aged about 11 years, has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition alleging that her minor daughter was ill-treated, assaulted and sexually harassed by her maternal grandmother's friend, one Dictolibar, and her neighbours, namely Vijayan and Sujitha. Hence, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,

Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli, on 05.10.2026. Though a Community Service Register number was assigned in CSR.No.249 of 2026, the minor child was not secured and handed over to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner married one Reegan Tenis Balan, of Ilangulam, Nanguneri, on 22.01.2015. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born, who is presently aged about 11 years. The petitioner filed a divorce petition in D.V.O.P. No.76 of 2018 before the III Additional District Court, Tirunelveli, and a decree of divorce was granted on the ground of cruelty on 25.06.2018.

3. It is further submitted that the petitioner is employed in Chennai and had entrusted the care of her minor daughter to her mother, Pushpa, who resides at Tirunelveli. The said Pushpa was subsequently impleaded suo motu as the fourth respondent in the present proceedings. The petitioner would submit that she had been providing all necessary facilities to her daughter and visiting her regularly.

4. The learned counsel would further submit that the fourth respondent had developed an improper relationship with one Dictolibar, who frequently visited her house. When the petitioner's daughter objected to the same, the said person allegedly assaulted the minor child. The tenants, namely Vijayan and Sujitha, also allegedly abused the child. The petitioner came to know of these incidents when she spoke to her sister, Daphne Manovidhya. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint on 05.10.2026.

5. It is further submitted that the respondent police conducted an enquiry and recorded the relevant proceedings through audio and video. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that her daughter had been produced before the Child Welfare Committee, the third respondent herein, and was placed in the custody of a child care institution, namely DSS Saranalaym. Hence, the petitioner seeks the custody of her minor daughter.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent police, would submit that, pursuant to the complaint lodged by the petitioner, a CSR was assigned and an enquiry was conducted. During the enquiry, it was found that the allegations contained in the complaint were, to some extent, exaggerated. The minor child was thereafter handed over to the Child Welfare Committee, which conducted an enquiry and placed the child in the custody of a child care institution, namely DSS Saranalaym.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the Social Welfare Officer conducted an enquiry and prepared a Social Investigation Report, which has been produced before this Court.

On a perusal of the said report, it is seen that the petitioner had entrusted the care of her minor daughter to the fourth respondent when the child was about two years old. Since then, the child has been brought up by the fourth respondent, who has been taking care of the child's education and other needs.

8. It is further evident from the Social Investigation Report that the petitioner subsequently contracted a second marriage with her school- time acquaintance, Shiva, and they have a child through the said marriage. The detenu/minor child is presently studying in the VI Standard at Sara Tucker Girls' Higher Secondary School, Tirunelveli, and has been brought up by the fourth respondent from infancy.

9. The Social Investigation Report further indicates that the present dispute appears to have arisen in connection with certain houses recently purchased by the fourth respondent. There is an apprehension on the part of the petitioner and her sister, Daphne Manovidhya, that the said properties may be settled in favour of third person and not to them. The report also indicates that the allegations concerning the character of the fourth respondent and the alleged sexual harassment by the person visiting her house appear to have arisen in the context of the dispute between the parties. However, the allegations are matters to be considered on the basis of the available materials and cannot be treated as established merely on the basis of the report.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that the fourth respondent is employed as a teacher at an R.C. Primary School at Ilangulam, near Parappadi, and has been taking care of the minor child from an early age by providing her with love, affection, education and other necessities.

11. With regard to the allegations concerning the person who frequently visited the fourth respondent's house, the learned counsel would submit that the said person is a religious priest who visits the house for prayer purposes. The fourth respondent has undertaken before this Court that she would not permit the said person to visit her house in the future and that, if prayer is required, the same would be conducted only at the church. She has further undertaken that no unauthorised person would be permitted to enter the house in a manner that may cause annoyance or disturbance to the minor child.

12. The fourth respondent has also undertaken to continue to take care of the minor child and provide her with love, affection, education and all other necessities. She has no objection to the petitioner or her sister visiting the house and spending time with the minor child.

13. This Court interacted with the petitioner, the fourth respondent and the minor child. This Court has also perused the Social Investigation

Report placed before it. On a consideration of the report and the interaction with the parties, this Court finds that the minor child has been residing with the fourth respondent from an early age and that the fourth respondent has been taking care of the child's upbringing and education.

14. The paramount consideration in determining matters concerning a minor child is the welfare and best interests of the child. In the present case, the materials placed before this Court indicate that the minor child has been brought up by the fourth respondent from the age of about two years and has been continuing her education while in the care of the fourth respondent. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Social Investigation Report and the interaction with the parties, this Court finds no sufficient material to conclude that the minor child is presently under illegal detention warranting the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus.

15. In view of the above, and taking into consideration the welfare and best interests of the minor child, this Court is of the view that the child may continue to remain in the care and custody of the fourth respondent, subject to the undertaking given by her before this Court. The fourth respondent shall ensure the safety, welfare, education and overall well-being of the minor child and shall permit the petitioner and her sister can visit the child and spend time with her. Accordingly, this Habeas

Corpus Petition is disposed of. (M.N.K.,J.) (N.G.N.,J.) 27-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No PAL To

1. The Superintendent of Police O/o.The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli District

2. The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Cheranmahadevi Tirunelveli District

3. The Chairperson Govt Observation Home, Saranalayam Babuji nagar Balabagya Nagar South Tirunelveli

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. AND N.GUNASEKARAN, J. PAL HCP(MD) No. 1358 of 2026 27-10-2026