Madras High Court
L.Balaji vs The State Rep. By on 29 July, 2021
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
L.Balaji,
S/o.Lakshmi Narayanan ... Petitioner
versus
1.The State Rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Maraimalai Nagar Range,
Chengalpattu District.
2.The State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Maraimalai Nagar Police Station,
Chengalpattu District.
3.K.Purushothaman
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Guduvanchery. ... Respondents
[R.4- Suo motu impleaded as per order of this Court in H.C.P.No.320 of
2021 dated 25.02.2021 and amended on 23.04.2021].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/10
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the second respondent
to produce the body of the petitioner's wife Upasana, W/o.L.Balaji, aged
about 22 years was illegal custody by the third respondent before this
Court and set her liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karthik
For Respondent No.1, 2 & 4 : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent No.3 : M/s.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
It is the case of the petitioner that he was in love with Upasana
and since her parents did not accept their marriage, he got married to her
on 31.08.2017 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Kodambakkam. After
marriage, they went to their respective parental home and did not
disclose about the marriage. Ultimately, the matter became public on
06.02.2021 and Upasana's parents were not permitting her to join him.
On the allegation that Upasana is being kept under illegal detention by
her parents, this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed seeking her
production.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
2 Upasana's father has been shown as the 3rd respondent. On
notice, Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, Advocate, entered appearance for the
third respondent and submitted that, Upasana was trapped into a fake
marriage by the petitioner and that the marriage has to be annulled in the
light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.Balakrishnan
Pandiyan vs. The Superintendent of Police and 3 others.
3 In this regard, Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, submitted that the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandalur Sub Division, Chengalpattu
District, had conducted an enquiry and found that the petitioner had
given fabricated records for registering the marriage.
4 Since foul play was alleged, we directed the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vandalur Sub Division, to file a Status Report
and further directed the parties to be present before this Court.
5 Today, Mr.R.Arul Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, H-1
Otteri Police Station, is present. The petitioner and Upasana are also
present with their respective counsel. The petitioner is residing at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
No.14/1, LIG, NH-1, Ponmudiyar Street, Maraimalai Nagar - 603 209.
6 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vandalur Sub
Division, has filed a status report dated 29.07.2021, wherein, he has
stated as follows;
"2. I submit that on 11.08.2021 at about 16.00 a.m., the petitioner /
defacto complainant namely Selvi.Upasana aged about 22 years
D/o.Purushothaman lodged a complaint before me by stating that she was
residing at the above address, she is M.B.A. graduate and she is living
with her parents at Singaperumal Koil, Chengalpattu District. I further
stated that, during her studies in Higher Secondary Class (+1) at St.Joseph
Higher Secondary School, Maraimalai Nagar, one of the old student of the
same school namely L.Balaji, S/o.Lakshminarayanan, petitioner herein
who was living at Maraimalai Nagar petitioner was behaving in-
appropriate and same was warned by Upasana's father. Later petitioner
apologized and seeks for her friendship as amends, and the friendship
continued during her collage studies. In the meanwhile, petitioner asked
complainant to go to cinema along with friends then she accepted. But
petitioner brought complainant to Sub-Register Office, Arumbakkam,
Chennai, and When Selvi.Upasama asked for the purpose upon arrival of
Sub-register office, at that time, petitioner told her that, we are here to sign
as a witness for his friend marriage. Since, the Complainant signed all the
places as a witness on the compulsion of petitioner, without knowing the
consequences of the situations she was put into.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
3. I submit that the presently complainant parents were making
arrangement for her marriage, then she told her parents that, what has
happened and the event that took placed, she also requested to save her
from her past mistakes and secure her future by taking appropriate action
by freeing from petitioner and securing photos, cell phone conversation
and documents.
4. I submit that on 11.02.2021 with the regard to that complainant
registered, with reference C.No.18/SDO/VAN/2021, Dated 11.02.2021 and
took up the petition for enquiry, recorded the statement of Complainant
and she was stated that, the corroborated with her petition.
5. I submit that during the course of enquiry, on 18.02.2021, I have
given requisition letter to the Sub-Register, Arumbakkam, Chennai to
verify the trueness of their marriage registration. In this connection on
23.02.2021 concerned Sub Register, Arumbakkam, Chennai was replied
that is the Petitioner and Complainant marriage has been registered under
the Tamil Nadu Marriage Act on 31.08.2017 vide the Serial No.501/2017
and sent the following documents, whether they submitted at the time of
marriage registration.
Certificate of Registration of Marriage vide S.N.501/2017,
Dated.31.08.2017,
1. Form-II of Registration of Marriage of Tr.Balaji with
Tmt.Upasana
2. Form-I Memorandum of Marriage
3. Aadhar Xerox copy of Tr.Balaji
4. Birth Certificate of Tr.Balaji
5. Ration Card proof copy of Tr.Balaji
6. Aadhar Xerox copy of Tmt.Upasana
7. Birth Certificate of Tmt.Upasana
8. Copy of Marriage invitation for the marriage of Tr.Balaji and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
Tmt.Upasana
6. I submit that during the course of enquiry, I have sent a summon
to Tr.Balaji for the enquiry of petitioner against him and same was denied
by the petitioner, also did not appeared for enquiry and not responding
properly, further respondent police made a phone call, at that time,
petitioner was represented that, he will deal the matter before the
Honorable Court.
7. I further submit that, In this enquiry, I have summoned the
Tr.Solayappan, Saravana Mini Hall, Vadapalai, Chennai, who is the owner
of the Saravana Mini Hall, Vadapalani to verify the truthiness of marriage
of Complainant and petitioner. Further I have enquired the above said
Tr.Solayappan, at Vadapalani on 25.02.2021 and he submitted letter,
stating that, he was running a Photo studio in the name of Saravana Photo
Studio at No.33, Palani Andavar Koil Street, Vadapalani, Chennai since
1981, As the studio business was non-profitable, he has modified the same
as Saravana Mini Hall recently in the year of 2021, also further stated that,
the year of 2017 there is no Saravana Mini hall in and around the
surrounding area.
8. I further submit that the petitioner produced documents before
the Honorable High Court including the marriage invitation and it was
mentioned that, the marriage of petitioner and complainant held on
30.08.2017, there is no such mini hall mentioned in the produced marriage
invitation document before the Honorable High Court as the proof of their
marriage and also at the specified address on the particular day, so the
petitioner side produced the marriage invitation is fabricated as the false
document and the Honorable High Court has to be taken it document proof
as the prime of facie in this regard.
9. I submit that, the petitioner was mentioned in his affidavit that
their married was held as a Register married at Sub-Register Office,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
Arumbakkam, Chennai but petitioner submit his records before the Sub-
Register Office, Arumbakkam, Chennai that the marriage was took place
one day before on 30.08.2017 and the marriage registration has been held
on the next day on 31.08.2017 at Saravana Mini Hall, Vadapalani,
Chennai. If the wedding has taken place in such hall, the photo would have
been produced before the Honorable High Court, because it did not happen
like that, they could not hand it over. Hence the Court will account and
consider this.
10. I hereby submitted, the petitioner with an intention created the
fabricated documents and created the false record and try to execute his
wrongdoing accordance with law. The Honorable High Court may be
considered the following aspects in this petitioner of Tr.Balaji's petition
that,
1. Registrar sign difference in photos of bride and groom.
2. Seal of register is outside the photo.
3. Upasana's parents name and initials were wrong in the
invitation.
4. Place of the marriage is faked and petitioner was not produced
any photo as proof of their marriage.
5. He had the marriage certificate as the marriage registration, but
he mentioned his affidavit that, the marriage has been held at
Register office as Registered Marriage."
7 Thus, from the report of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, it appears that there was no marriage hall by name Saravana Mini
Hall, wherein, the petitioner is said to have solemnised his marriage with
Upasana on 30.08.2017. It may be relevant to state here that in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
affidavit filed in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner has
cleverly not mentioned the date of marriage and has instead, merely
stated that he got married in the said Registrar's Office at Kodambakkam
on 31.08.2017. In support of this contention, he has filed a typed set of
papers containing inter alia the certificate bearing Marriage Sl.
No.501/2017 said to have been issued by the Marriage Registrar, Sub-
Registrar Office, Kodambakkam, under the Tamil Nadu Registration of
Marriages Act, 2009.
8 When enquired by us, Upasana stated that the petitioner was
his friend and he called her to the Registrar's Office saying that, one of
his friend is getting married and wanted her to stand as a witness. Only in
those circumstances, she had gone to the Registrar's Office where he had
slyly obtained her signature and photograph, with which, he has made it
appear as if she got married to him. She further stated that she is not in
the illegal custody of any person and that she is living with her parents,
on her own accord.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
9 Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj submitted that the marriage deserves
to be annulled, in view of the status report of the Deputy Superintendent
of Police. We are afraid that we cannot do so as these are disputed
questions of fact which cannot be determined in a writ proceedings. In
the judgment relied on by Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, this Court has
provided a detailed mechanism for annulling such marriages.
Therefore, we find no merit in this Habeas Corpus Petition and
accordingly, the same is dismissed, with liberty to the parties to work out
their remedies before the appropriate forum. It is open to Upasana to
challenge the marriage certificate and get a declaration that her marriage
is null and void in the appropriate Court and for a further declaration that
the marriage certificate issued, is also null and void.
[P.N.P.,J.] [R.P.A.,J.]
29.07.2021
sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
AND
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
sri
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Maraimalai Nagar Range,
Chengalpattu District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Maraimalai Nagar Police Station,
Chengalpattu District.
3.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Guduvanchery.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.320 of 2021
29.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
