D. Murugesan, J. - (1.) THOUGH the habeas corpus petition is not listed today, as the detenue has been secured and produced, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has requested the Court to take up the matter.
(2.) THE petitioner, the father of the detenue, has come before this Court by way of the present habeas corpus petition with the allegation that his daughter namely, D.Sangeetha @ Amudha, a minor, was kidnapped by one S.Kumar, S/o Sivalingam of Arambakkam Post, Gummidipoondi Taluk. He claims to be an agricultural labourer and the detenue is one of his children. After his daughter passed XII standard, due to poverty, he could not send her for higher education and therefore he secured an employment for her in Autolec Company at Gummidipoondi. While that be so, the third respondent, who is also working in the same company, had kidnapped the detenue with the assistance of the respondents 4 to 7. Hence he lodged a complaint on 14.3.2008 to the Inspector of Police, Gummidipoondi Police Station. As no action was taken, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court with this petition. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court on 24.3.2008, the detenue is produced. We enquired the detenue. Her date of birth is 5.6.90. According to her, she and the third respondent have fallen in love for a period of more than two years and as both of them were working in the same company, they decided to marry and accordingly, they got married on 13.3.2008 in a temple. On a specific question put to her, she is firm on going only with the third respondent as she has accepted him as her husband. She also stated that if she is directed to accompany the petitioner, she will commit suicide. The question as to whether a minor girl eloping with a boy could be sent along with the boy should be decided keeping the facts of each case in mind. Though normally the consent of the minor is relevant and the marriage also cannot be recognized by this Court in a habeas corpus petition, the paramount interest of the detenue-girl cannot be totally ignored. In this case, the detenue will be completing 18 years of age on 5.6.2008 i.e., in another two months period. She specifically stated that she had gone on her own volition with the third respondent and both the third respondent and herself got married in a temple and they are presently living as husband and wife. It is also brought to our notice that the girl is in her family way. Under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Kumari (Minor), aged 17 years, rep.by the Registrar General, High Court, Madras v. The Inspector of Police, Vyasarpadi and others (2003 (2) LW (Crl.) 89) by taking into consideration that the girl lived with the boy for sometime and she was 20 weeks pregnant, allowed the girl to go along with her husband. Following the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in H.C.P.No.375 of 2008 by order dated 24.3.2008 had also allowed the minor girl to go along with her husband. In view of the above, we are not inclined to order this habeas corpus petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed setting the detenue at liberty.;