JAKULIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. V. G. Manimekalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents and perused the records.

(2.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the mother of one Nisha Cathrin praying that her daughter should be produced before this Court. It is admitted that the age of the daughter of the petitioner is more than 18 years. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit of the Petition, it has been stated that the daughter of the petitioner was in love with the third respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner suspects that her daughter has gone with the third respondent and has married him. Even though it has been stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit that the petitioner is suspecting that her daughter is under illegal custody of the third respondent suffering from untold attrocity, prima facie, nothing has been shown on this aspect. On the other hand, the copy of the letter filed in the typed set sent by the daughter indicates that she has married the third respondent.

(3.) UNDER such circumstances, we do not find any scope to issue any writ of Habeas Corpus Petition as prima facie, there is no illegal custody. Hence, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.