Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

M.Kumar Vs. State

M.Kumar vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 17, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1167553

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.Kumar

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....this hon'ble court and hand over their custody to the petitioner.2. the learned additional public prosecutor has produced the detenue, namely, mrs.saral dyana, wife of the petitioner along with their son mithileshwar.3. on being enquired with mrs.saral dyana, she has stated that both the petitioner and detenue fell in love with each other, which ended in their espousal on 02.11.2005. out of wedlock, they were blessed with one male child on 16.04.2008, named as mithileshwar. she also showed her inclination to go with her husband / petitioner along with her son in the event of petitioner assuring to maintain a healthy and peaceful atmosphere in the matrimonial home.4. the petitioner / husband of detenue mrs.saral dyana also undertakes to keep his wife and son in his matrimonial home and provide comfort and protection for them in order to lead a robust life.5. considering the fact that the couple, namely, the petitioner and detenue agreed to reunite in their wedded life, we feel it appropriate to set the detenue mrs.saral dyana at liberty to go with her husband / petitioner along with her son mithileshwar.6. the habeas corpus petition is allowed accordingly. no costs. ar to 1. the superintendent of police, kancheepuram kancheepuram district.2. the inspector of police maraimalai nagar police station, maraimalai nagar, kancheepuram district

Full Judgment

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:

17. 06.2013 Coram :- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM Habeas Corpus Petition No.301 of 2013 M.Kumar .. Petitioner -vs- 1. The State Rep. by The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram Kancheepuram District.

2. The Inspector of Police Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Maraimalai Nagar, Kancheepuram District.

3. Bhoopathy @ Manoj .. Respondents Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the second respondent to physically bring the body of petitioner's wife, namely, Saral Dyana, aged about 28 years and petitioner's son Mithileshwar, aged about 5 years before this Hon'ble court and hand over his custody to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Addl. Public Prosecutor **** ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner moved this application for a direction to the second respondent to physically bring the body of petitioner's wife, namely, Saral Dyana, aged about 28 years and petitioner's son Mithileshwar, aged about 5 years before this Hon'ble court and hand over their custody to the petitioner.

2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the detenue, namely, Mrs.Saral Dyana, wife of the petitioner along with their son Mithileshwar.

3. On being enquired with Mrs.Saral Dyana, she has stated that both the petitioner and detenue fell in love with each other, which ended in their espousal on 02.11.2005. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with one male child on 16.04.2008, named as Mithileshwar. She also showed her inclination to go with her husband / petitioner along with her son in the event of petitioner assuring to maintain a healthy and peaceful atmosphere in the matrimonial home.

4. The petitioner / husband of detenue Mrs.Saral Dyana also undertakes to keep his wife and son in his matrimonial home and provide comfort and protection for them in order to lead a robust life.

5. Considering the fact that the couple, namely, the petitioner and detenue agreed to reunite in their wedded life, we feel it appropriate to set the detenue Mrs.Saral Dyana at liberty to go with her husband / petitioner along with her son Mithileshwar.

6. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. ar To 1. The Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram Kancheepuram District.

2. The Inspector of Police Maraimalai Nagar Police Station, Maraimalai Nagar, Kancheepuram District

Continue Your Research

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2013 Same Parties M.Kumar vs State Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge V.Dhanapalan
Land Acquisition

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales