Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner, acting as husband and father of the detenues, sought direction to the respondents to produce his wife aged about 26 years and his minor daughter aged about 5 years and set them at liberty. The petitioner had alleged that his wife and daughter went missing and had given a police complaint on 20.12.2024, which was registered as Crime No.712 of 2024 by the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station. The respondents included the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, the Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, and one Kavitha Murugan. During hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner reported that the wife of the petitioner had been traced along with the child and that the child had been brought back and was presently in the custody of the petitioner. The wife was not willing to join the petitioner due to some personal reasons. Reporting this development, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought withdrawal of the habeas corpus petition and made an endorsement to that effect. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2 confirmed the same on information received through police. In light of these facts, the court dismissed the habeas corpus petition as withdrawn. No adjudication was made on the merits of the alleged illegal detention. The court recorded the fact that the minor child was restored to the father's custody and that the wife declined to return. The judgment was delivered by Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice R. Poornima on 09.04.2025. The order was made in H.C.P(MD)No.35 of 2025. The outcome was procedural, based on the petitioner's voluntary withdrawal after the detenues were located, and did not involve any determination of legality of detention or custody. The court did not impose any further directions or conditions. The case was dismissed as withdrawn, effectively bringing the habeas corpus proceedings to an end. No costs were ordered. The additional public prosecutor confirmed the factual development, ensuring that the withdrawal was not based on any misrepresentation. The court accepted the endorsement of withdrawal and recorded the dismissal in the order. The decision reflects the principle that habeas corpus petitions may be withdrawn when the purpose of the writ is fulfilled or the petitioner chooses not to pursue the remedy, subject to confirmation of facts by the state. The case underscores the limited role of the court in habeas corpus matters once the detenues are no longer missing and the petitioner does not press for further relief.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Habeas Corpus - Article 226 Constitution of India - Dismissal as Withdrawn - The petitioner sought habeas corpus for his missing wife and minor daughter; after they were traced, the child was restored to the petitioner's custody and the wife declined to join him due to personal reasons; counsel sought withdrawal with endorsement and Additional Public Prosecutor confirmed; Held petition dismissed as withdrawn (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued for production of the petitioner's wife and minor daughter reported missing.
Final Decision
Habeas Corpus Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
Law Points
- Writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- withdrawal of petition after detenues traced
- no adjudication on merits
