Madras High Court
Alagarsamy vs The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. Through on 17 September, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
H.C.P(MD)No.1140 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
H.C.P.(MD) No.1140 of 2025
Alagarsamy ... Petitioner
Vs
The State of Tamilnadu rep. through
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Palani Taluk Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3.Karunambal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the first and second
respondents to produce petitioner's son namely Murugesan, aged about
55 years, S/o.Alagarsamy in persons or body of detenu before this Court
and set liberty to the detenu.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthusamy
For R1 & R2 : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:21 pm )
H.C.P(MD)No.1140 of 2025
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.)
The petitioner is aged about 82 years old and has filed this
petition to produce his son Murugesan, who is aged about 55 years
before this Court.
2. The son of the petitioner Murugesan had marriged the
third respondent Karunambal. Subsequently, owing to various issues, the
son of the petitioner had filed H.M.O.P.No.36 of 2021 before the Sub
Court, Palani and had obtained divorce by judgment and decree dated
26.02.2025. It is contended that he is now kept under illegal custody and
confinement of the third respondent.
3. However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents produced a certificate issued by the
Dr.G.Kannan, Landmarc Hospital, K.Pudur, Madurai, wherein, the doctor
had very clearly stated that the son of the petitioner had been admitted
for valuation and for treatment complaining sleep disturbance, talking to
himself, wandering, poor self care, suspiciousness and other disease.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:21 pm )
Photographs of the son of the petitioner have also been produced by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
4. He is, therefore, not in illegal custody. The grievance of
the petitioner is that when the petitioner went over to the hospital, he was
denied permission to meet his son. The hospital authorities have also not
been impleaded as a party in this case. The petitioner knows the
whereabouts of his son. We are of the opinion that the son of the
petitioner is only taking treatment and is not in unlawful and illegal
custody. We permit the petitioner to meet his son, but the petitioner is
very strictly directed from causing any disturbance to his son and not to
discharge his son from the hospital till the treatement is completed.
Thereafter, he and his son can walk away from the hospital.
5. We find no merits in the habeas corpus petition. This
habeas corpus petition is dismissed.
(C.V.K., J.) (R.V., J.)
17.09.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:21 pm )
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Dindigul District,
Dindigul.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Palani Taluk Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:21 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
am
ORDER MADE IN
17.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 05:04:21 pm )
