The Madras High Court held that habeas corpus cannot compel a spouse’s return if she leaves voluntarily, as Justices N Anand Venkatesh and P Dhanabal heard a plea seeking production of a wife and children.
CHENNAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently ruled that a habeas corpus petition cannot be used to compel the return of a spouse who has left the matrimonial home of her own free will.
A Division Bench of Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and P. Dhanabal issued the decision while considering a habeas corpus petition filed by S. Murugan. He sought the production of his wife and their two children, claiming they had been missing since March 6, 2026.
Ultimately, the Court directed the police to locate the missing woman and the children and to bring them before a judicial magistrate.
The petitioner said that although he had reported the matter to the police, no effective measures had been taken to find them. A “woman missing” FIR was registered on March 7, 2026 based on his complaint.
The State’s counsel told the Court that the woman had allegedly entered into a relationship with another man and had voluntarily left with him, taking the children along.
On this basis, the Court observed that, as far as the wife was concerned, no order could be passed in habeas corpus proceedings if she had left by her own choice.
It said,
“If she chooses to go along with the third respondent, there is nothing much that can be done in a Habeas Corpus Petition and the petitioner has to necessarily work out his remedy against his wife before the concerned Court. However, this Court is more concerned about the two children, who have been taken away by the detenue.”
Accordingly, the Bench instructed the police to find the woman and the children and produce them before the judicial magistrate at Alangulam as soon as possible.
The Court further directed that once produced, the magistrate should record the woman’s statement, speak with the children and take any necessary steps in accordance with the law.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate V.M. Jegadeesha Pandian. The State was represented by Advocate Thiruvadi Kumar.
Case Title: Murugan v. State
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE