If wife chooses to elope with another man, habeas corpus petition can't remedy it: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently said that a habeas corpus petition cannot be used to bring back a spouse who has voluntarily left her matrimonial home [Murugan v. State].

A Division Bench of Justices N Anand Venkatesh and P Dhanabal passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by S Murugan, who sought production of his wife and their two children, alleging that they had gone missing since March 6, 2026.

The Court eventually directed the police to trace the missing woman and children and produce them before a judicial magistrate.

The petitioner submitted that despite lodging a complaint with the police, no effective steps had been taken to trace them. Based on his complaint, a “woman missing” first information report (FIR) had been registered on March 7, 2026.

Counsel for the State informed the Court that the woman had allegedly developed a relationship with another man and had voluntarily left with him, taking the children along.

Taking note of this submission, the Court held that insofar as the wife was concerned, no direction could be issued in habeas corpus proceedings if she had chosen to leave on her own accord.

"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 directed the police to trace the whereabouts of the woman and the children and produce them before the judicial magistrate at Alangulam, at the earliest.

The Court further directed that upon such production, the magistrate shall record the woman’s statement, interact with the children and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate VM Jegadeesha Pandian.

The State was represented by Advocate Thiruvadi Kumar.

[Read Judgment]