Sangumithra Ashokan vs The Deputy Commissioner of Police

HCP No. 1656 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
H.C.P.No.1656 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011919332026}
Sangumithra Ashokan
W/o.Navinraj Natarajan,
H.No.52.1/55, 52/56,
R.D.Paul Street,
Arisipalayam, Salem.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Arisipalayam Police Station,
Salem.
3. Navinraj Natarajan,
S/o Natarajan,
st
No.19/12, 1 Avenue,
Sundar Nagar, Guindy, Chennai.
Temporarily Residing at
Block-211, Bukit Batok Street 21,
Singapore 650 211.
..Respondent(s)
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the third respondent to produce
the petitioner’s child, the detenu viz . Ilan Sanav, son of Navinraj Natarajan,
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

HCP No. 1656 of 2026
aged 4 years, before this Court and hand over to the petitioner from the custody
of the third respondent.
For Petitioner(s): Ms.Dhakshayani Reddy, Senior Advocate
for Mr.S.Kolandasamy
For RR 1 and 2:
Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3:
Mr.Nagesh Nakhul
ORDER
(made by A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J.)
This habeas corpus petition has been filed seeking a direction to the third
respondent to produce the petitioner’s child, the detenu viz . Ilan Sanav, son of
Navinraj Natarajan, aged 4 years, before this Court and hand over to her from
the custody of the third respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that her hometown is Salem and her
marriage with the third respondent was solemnized on 23.08.2018; during the
marriage, her parents gifted her 30 sovereigns of gold and diamond jewellery, a
gold chain of 4 sovereigns and gold bracelet of 3 sovereigns to the third
respondent and traditional household items, including silverware as “Sridhana”;
after marriage, the petitioner and the third respondent cohabitated in the third
respondent’s Chennai residence; thereafter, the third respondent left for
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

HCP No. 1656 of 2026
Singapore on employment without taking her and after her continuous
insistence, the third respondent took her to Singapore on a tourist visa, where,
she got employment and thereafter, continued in an employment visa under the
control of Ministry of Manpower; later, she delivered a male baby on
13.07.2022 in Singapore; while so, she got terminated from the company;
though she requested the third respondent for a dependent visa, he refused to get
the same and therefore, she was forced to leave the child in Singapore and
return to India; she attempted to speak to the third respondent after returning to
Salem, but, the third respondent did not respond to her calls and he also did not
allow her to see the child through video call; she later learned that the child has
become weak day by day and was frequently taken to hospital, as it was
suffering from sleep disturbance and extreme distress and now, he is under the
care of a helper; meanwhile, she filed H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2026 before the
Family Court, Salem, for divorce and also filed an interim application seeking
custody of the child, in which, the third respondent appeared through video
conference from Singapore; later, on advice that only the High Court has the
jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus, she withdrew the H.M.O.P.
proceedings and filed the present petition.
3. The learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel on
record for the petitioner submitted that the custody of the petitioner’s child in
the hands of the third respondent is illegal and therefore, the petitioner has filed
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

HCP No. 1656 of 2026
the present petition for production of the child before this Court and hand over
its custody to her.
4. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent
submitted that the third respondent is none other than the father/natural guardian
of the child; the third respondent got married to the petitioner on 23.08.2018
and through the wedlock, the petitioner delivered a child in Singapore on
13.07.2022 and they were living together in Singapore; since milestones were
not proper, the child was taken to hospital and was diagnosed with autism
spectrum disorder in April, 2025; while so, the petitioner lost her job in
Singapore; though the petitioner’s visa was valid till 06.12.2025, she left
Singapore on 12.08.2025 leaving the child without informing the third
respondent; in this regard, the third respondent also gave a complaint to the
Singapore police on 18.08.2025; meanwhile, the petitioner also filed a divorce
petition in H.M.O.P.No.96 of 2026 before the Family Court, Salem and the third
respondent has not voided the appearance and appeared through video
conference; the petitioner withdrew the H.M.O.P. proceedings and
subsequently, filed the present petition before this Court; since the child is
suffering from autism spectrum disorder, the third respondent brought the child
to Bengaluru for treatment at NIMHANS and as per the advice and opinion of
the doctors, the child has been put in KLAY Preschool and Daycare at
Bengaluru; further, the third respondent, taking into consideration the welfare of
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

HCP No. 1656 of 2026
the child, also filed G&WC.No.422 of 2026, which is pending on the file of the
IV Additional Family Court, Bengaluru and notice has also been issued to the
petitioner; the custody of the child with the third respondent is not illegal and
this habeas corpus petition is not maintainable and therefore, the same is liable
to be dismissed.
5. Denying all the allegations in the habeas corpus petition, the
learned counsel appearing for the third respondent further submitted that the
third respondent is ready to show the child to the petitioner in a common place
and he has already given an undertaking at paragraph no.51 of the petition in
G&WC.No.422 of 2026 that he does not have objections to the petitioner
having supervised visitation of the minor child at healthy intervals without
impacting the child’s schedule and welfare and he is also ready to give the
necessary undertaking before the Family Court, Bengaluru.
6. This Court does not at his juncture, want to venture into the
allegations and counter allegations with regard to the matrimonial issues
between the parties. The preliminary issue to be decided at the first instance is
whether the petitioner can maintain the instant habeas corpus petition.
7. In this regard, this Court finds that this question is no longer res
integra , as the issue involved herein has been squarely covered by the order of
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

HCP No. 1656 of 2026
this Court in Sangavi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [ 2026 SCC OnLine
Mad 6505 ], in which, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Tejaswini
Gaud and Others v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others [ (2019) 7
SCC 42 ] has been taken into consideration, while deciding the same.
8. Keeping in mind the ratio laid in Tejaswini Gaud (supra) and also
taking into consideration the order passed in Sangavi (supra) and further,
considering the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the instant habeas
corpus petition is not maintainable.
Hence, this habeas corpus petition stands dismissed. The observations
made in this order are only for the limited purpose of disposing of this petition.
The parties are at liberty to work out their remedy in the manner known to law.
(A.D.J.C.,J.) (K.G.R.,J.)
12-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsd
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

HCP No. 1656 of 2026
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Arisipalayam Police Station,
Salem.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )

HCP No. 1656 of 2026
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA J.
AND
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN J.
nsd
HCP No. 1656 of 2026
12-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:51 pm )