(Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner's daughter, aged 10 years (at the time of missing aged 4 days), daughter of Muthumanickam, before this Court and set her at liberty and handed over the custody to the petitioner and pass such further or other orders.)
S. Nagamuthu, J.
1. The petitioner, Mrs.Mareeswari, is a differently abled woman, hardly aged 31 years. She is a visually challenged woman, having lost her vision after she had just completed her +2 Examinations. Her husband, Mr.Muthumanickam, is also a differently abled person, having total loss of vision by birth. But, still, they have not lost the hope of their future. They married in the year 2005. Out of the said wedlock, the petitioner became pregnant and she was admitted as inpatient at the Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital, on 05.01.2006, for delivery of the child. On 06.01.2006, at 05.20 p.m., a female child was born to her. The grandmother of the petitioner, who herself was a old woman, was taking care of the petitioner in the hospital. The petitioner was not able to personally take care of the child, due to her visual impairment. But, a culprit, who thought it as an opportunity for him, used it and took the child stealthily from the hospital, without the knowledge of the petitioner. Within one hour of the missing of the child, the petitioner realised the same. The petitioner and her husband could not go in search of the child, obviously, due to their physical disablement. The only old woman, namely, the grandmother of the petitioner went in search of the child and informed the police also about the same. She could not succeed. Then, on the complaint of the petitioner, a case was registered by the Inspector of Police, B-15, Mathichiam Police Station, Madurai City, in Crime No.14 of 2006, on 10.01.2006 at 10.30 a.m. But, the child was not traced by the police also. The petitioner was discharged from the hospital. All along, she was under the impression that the investigation was in progress and she was having hope that the female child would be traced by the police and handed over to her. But, it never happened.
2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's husband, Mr.Muthumanickam, got a small employment in a private hospital as Lift Operator. He has been earning a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month, out of which, he has been maintaining the family. They are living in a residential house. Fortunately, the petitioner again became pregnant and this time, the petitioner and her husband did not want to take the risk of going to the Government Hospital at Madurai, as their apprehension was that there was no safety for the child after birth in the hospital. [When enquired, the petitioner and her husband told the Court that they were not willing to go to the Government Hospital, because they had already the bitter experience of having lost their first child in the hospital]. The petitioner and her husband would further submit that this time, they approached one Dr.Indira Rajan of Madurai seeking her help to admit the petitioner in a private hospital for delivery. It is appreciable to note that this time, Dr.Indira Rajan, was very compassionate towards the petitioner and admitted the petitioner in a private hospital, where the petitioner gave delivery of a female child again. The said child has been named after Deva Kiruba. Now, she is aged 9 years. The petitioner and her husband would say that at home, they do not find any difficulty in the routine affairs, like cooking, washing, etc., because God has bestowed them with the ability to do these day-to-day affairs, though they are visually impaired. The petitioner claims that she cooks and feeds the child and her husband. But, the family is run out of Rs.4,500/-, which is drawn as salary from the private hospital. Mr.Muthumanickam, would submit that he has been offered employment by the hospital authorities, considering his pathetic condition. Dr.Indira Rajan as well as the private hospital, which has offered employment to the husband of the petitioner, need appreciation of this Court.
3. So far as the child, Deva Kiruba is concerned, they would state that the child has been admitted in Biscoss Matriculation School, Anna Nagar, Madurai, where she is now studying 4th Standard. The petitioner and her husband would further submit that considering the plight of the petitioner and her husband, the school authorities have assured not to receive any amount towards the fees for the child to get educated in the school. Now, the petitioner and her husband are residing somewhere near the school and therefore it is not too difficult for the child to go to the school everyday. The school authorities also needs our appreciation.
4. As we have already pointed out, the petitioner and her husband were all along under the impression that the case in Crime No.14 of 2006 was still under investigation and they were hoping that one day or the other, their first child would be traced by the police and handed over to them so as to bring back their lost joy. They have further stated that to their shock, they came to know from the newspaper, namely, Thinathanthi, that this Court in a Habeas Corpus Petition, has passed an order directing the Government to pay compensation to the parents of the children, who had been stolen away from various hospitals. They have further stated that from that newspaper Report, they came to know that the said order covers their case also for payment of compensation. They have also stated that from the News Report they came to know that the case in Crime No.14 of 2006 has been closed by the police without making any progress in the investigation. On knowing that, they have come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition, before this Court for necessary relief.
5. In this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor took notice for the respondents. When the Habeas Corpus Petition came up for hearing on 15.10.2015, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that as directed by this Court in H.C.P(MD)No.836 of 2013, the Government will pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioner and her husband on or before 27.10.2015. Having heard the plight of the petitioner, her husband and the child Deva Kiruba, Mr.M.Subash Babu, the President of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association, in response to a suggestion made by this Court, immediately came forward to help the petitioner and her husband, to educate the child. While appreciating, the said fine gesture extended by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association, this Court recorded in the order dated 15.10.2015 as follows:
The petitioner - Mrs.Mareeswari is present before this Court. Admittedly, she is visually impaired having lost her vision at the age of 17. Now, her loss of vision is 100%. Her husband - Mr.Muthumanickam is also present. Admittedly, he is also visually impaired by birth and his disability is also 100%. He would submit that he is working in a hospital as a Lift Operator and earning a paltry some of Rs.4,800/- with which he runs his family. The petitioner - Mrs.Mareeswari is only a house wife and she is not in a position to earn anything because of her disability. According to them, a female child born to the petitioner in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, was stolen away on 09.01.2006. On the complaint made by her, a case was registered in Crime No.14 of 2006 for child missing on 10.01.2006. But, the child has not been so far rescued. The petitioner and her husband have got another female child born subsequently and the said child is now educated by a private institution. Fortunately, the child is not physically challenged. The petitioner and her husband would say that they had been all along under the impression that the case in Crime No.14 of 2006 is under investigation and that steps have been taken by the Police to search for the child. But, they have come to know from the newspaper reports about the order passed by this Court in H.C.P.(MD).No.836 of 2013, wherein this Court directed payment of compensation to the family members of the children, who were stolen away from various Government Hospitals. The said direction binds the Government to pay compensation to the petitioner herein and her husband also for loss of their child. After having seen the said newspaper, according to the petitioner and her husband, they have come to know that the case has been closed. But, no intimation was given to them. Now, they want the case to be reopened. Accordingly, the 7th respondent is directed to reopen the case and on such reopening, the case shall be transferred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Madurai, for investigation.
2. In the meanwhile, Mr.Subash Babu, the learned counsel, who also happens to be the President of MMBA, submitted that the said bar association is inclined to adopt the female child “ M.Devakruba, to take care of the child and to meet out her expenses for her education, health and upkeep. The said fine gesture extended on behalf of the bar association is much appreciated by this Court. This gesture only shows the concern of the legal fraternity for the well being of the society and also it reflects that the lawyers community still maintain the glory of the profession as the noble profession, which is meant to serve the society at large. Mr.Subash Babu would submit that he would get the details of the child and be in touch with the petitioner and her husband and to extend monetary help to maintain the child.
3. It is stated by the petitioner and her husband that the second child has been admitted in a self-financing school, where considering their poverty, the school authorities have been giving free education to the child. Similarly, the petitioner's husband has been given employment by a private hospital to work as a lift operator. This would only go to show that there are people to help the needy people in the society. We need to appreciate the school for providing free education to the child and to the hospital for providing employment.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the compensation of Rs.3 lakhs, as ordered by this Court in H.C.P.(MD).No.836 of 2013, would be paid to the petitioner herein and her husband soon. It is directed that considering the condition of the petitioner and her husband, the said sum shall be paid by way of demand draft drawn in the name of the petitioner and the same shall be presented to them before this Court on 27.10.2015 ?.
6. The matter was thereafter adjourned to today. Today, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced a Demand Draft drawn from the State Bank of India, Madurai for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of the petitioner, Mrs.Mareeswari. When we enquired, Mrs.Mareeswari and her husband Mr.Muthumanickam, about their proposal for spending the said amount, they submitted that the entire amount of Rs.3,00,000/- could be kept in a Fixed Deposit in a bank enabling them to draw the interest alone every month to meet out the family expenses. They further submitted that this amount may be kept in the Fixed Deposit initially for three years and thereafter at the discretion of the petitioner and her husband, the period of deposit may be extended for a further period, until the child, Deva Kiruba, attains majority. Mr.Manoharan, the Manager of Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai is present before this Court, as requested by this Court. The Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, handed over to the petitioner, is in turn, handed over in Open Court to the Branch Manager of the Indian Bank, High Court Branch, Madurai. The said amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit jointly in the name of the petitioner and her husband Mr.Muthumanickam. The bank shall credit the monthly interest into the Savings Bank Account maintained by the petitioner, in a different bank.
7. Today, Mr.M.Veilkaniraju, the General Secretary of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association, has produced the Resolution of the Executive Committee of the said Association dated 26.10.2015, which states that the following resolution has been passed:
It is resolved unanimously to bear the educational expenses of minor Deva Kiruba, the daughter of Mrs.Mareeswari, W/o.Mr.Muthu, the petitioner in H.C.P.(MD)No.1453/2015 pending before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court up to her college education out of funds of MMBA ?.
The same is recorded. We appreciate the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Bar Association, for having such a compassion to extend helping hand to the petitioner and her husband to rescue them from penury to some extent so as to assure good education to the child, Deva Kiruba. We only wish that the child gets good education and be a useful daughter to take care of the petitioner and her husband in future and also to serve the society at large. The copy of the letter of the President, Mr.M.Subash Babu and the General Secretary, Mr.M.Veilkani Raju, shall form part of the records of this Court.
8. We need to appreciate the Press and Media for carrying the news regarding the order in H.C.P(MD)No.836 of 2013. But, for the said reporting, the petitioner and her husband would not have come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition, in which case, they would not have got the benefits extended to them by this order.
9. So far as the investigation is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that the investigation of the case in Crime No.14 of 2006 has already been reopened, as directed by this Court and he assures that every steps would be taken to trace out the missing child. The same is recorded.
10. With the above observations and recording the various undertakings referred to above, this Habeas Corpus Petition is closed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.