Madras High Court: In a habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for a missing wife and children, the Division Bench of N. Anand Venkatesh* and P. Dhanabal, JJ., observed that insofar as the wife was concerned, she had developed an illicit relationship with another individual, and if she chose to accompany him, nothing could be done in such proceedings, leaving the petitioner to seek remedy before the appropriate court. The Court, however, clarified that its greater concern was the welfare of the two minor children who had been taken away by the wife, and therefore directed the police to trace and produce them before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, to take the necessary decision in accordance with law. The Court observed that, if the wife voluntarily leaves home to go along with another individual, there was nothing much that could be done in a habeas corpus petition.
Background
The petitioner stated that his wife and two children, aged about 3½ years and 2 years, had gone missing from 6 March 2026 onwards. Despite his efforts, he was unable to trace them, leading to a complaint being lodged with the local police. Based on this, a “Woman missing FIR” was registered.
The grievance raised was that the police had not taken effective steps to trace the wife and the children, and that there was grave danger to them in the hands of the third respondent. However, the State submitted that the wife appeared to have developed an illicit relationship with the third respondent and had gone along with him, taking the children as well.
The petitioner emphasised that he was more concerned about the interest of the two children and sought directions to the second respondent to produce the wife as well as his two children.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that insofar as the wife was concerned, she seemed to have developed a relationship with the third respondent. The Court emphasised that if she chose to go along with the third respondent, there was nothing much that could be done in a habeas corpus petition and the petitioner had to necessarily work out his remedy against his wife before the court concerned.
However, the Court highlighted that it was more concerned about the two children, who had been taken away by the wife. The Court directed the second respondent to find the whereabouts of the wife and the children and produce them before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangulam, expeditiously. The Court noted that on the date of production, the petitioner must be put on notice, and the Magistrate shall record the statement of the wife.
As regards the children, the Court directed that the Magistrate shall talk with them, ascertain from them, and proceed further to take the necessary decision in accordance with law.
The Court thus disposed of the habeas corpus petition.
[S. Murugan v. State of T.N., H.C.P. (MD) No. 335 of 2026, decided on 17-3-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: V.M. Jegadeesha Pandian
For the Respondents: A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Buy Constitution of India HERE
