Crl.Writ Petition No.1319 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.W.P.No1319 of 2010 Date of decision: 27.7.2010 Sri Ram ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr.Gurnam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ... JORA SINGH, J. Sri Ram filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce detenue Sonia for giving her custody to the petitioner on the allegation that petitioner has solemnised marriage with Sonia on 1.8.2007 but from this wedlock, there is no issue. On 15.1.2010, mother of Sonia came to the residence of the petitioner with a request that she wanted to take Sonia to her parents home in District Ludhiana. Petitioner and his parents readily agreed to the request of mother of Sonia. Sonia along with her mother had gone to Ludhiana. After some time, petitioner visited the house of his in-laws and requested Sonia to accompany him but Sonia replied that she was ready to accompany him, but he will have to take permission of her parents. Petitioner requested respondent Nos.2 and 3 to send Sonia to her matrimonial home. They promised that they would come to his (Sri Ram) house after 2-3 months, Crl.Writ Petition No.1319 of 2010 2 but they did not turn up. Petitioner visited the residence of his in-laws 2-3 times and requested them to send Sonia to her matrimonial home. When respondents No.2 and 3 refused to send Sonia to her matrimonial home, then he approached Police Station Sadar, Rajpura. Police party headed by HC Naib Singh had gone to the house of respondents No.2 and 3 and enquired as to why Sonia was not allowed to accompany her husband. Then respondents No. 2 and 3 requested HC Naib Singh that Sonia was to be sent on 15.6.2010. Respondents No.2 and 3 had collected Rs.50,000/- from the father of the petitioner with a request to return the same, but failed to return Rs.50,000/-. Father of Sonia demanded Rs.20,000/- more from the father of the petitioner, but he did not agree. Sonia is ready to accompany the petitioner but respondents No. 2 and 3 are not allowing her to accompany the petitioner. Sonia is in illegal custody of respondents No. 2 and 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the petition and am of the opinion that petition was filed without any reason. First of all, there is no proof on the file that Sonia is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Marriage certificate, ration card, voter list or any photograph not on the file to show that Sonia is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. If I presume that Sonia is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, even then nothing on the file that Sonia is in illegal custody of respondents No. 2 and 3. Respondent No.2 is the father, whereas Crl.Writ Petition No.1319 of 2010 3 respondent No.3 is mother of Sonia. As per para 3 of the petition, Sonia on her own accord had gone to Ludhiana with her mother. Simple allegation of the petitioner is that Sonia was ready to accompany him but her parents were not allowing her to leave the house. If allegation of the petitioner is correct, then petitioner should have filed petition for restitution of conjugal right. But till today, no petition for restitution of conjugal right. If Sonia was ready to accompany the petitioner, then while appearing in Court, she would easily state that she is ready to accompany the petitioner. On enquiry from learned counsel for the petitioner as to why petition for restitution of conjugal right was not filed, there was no satisfactory reply. As per para 5 of the petition, petitioner had gone to Police Station Sadar, Rajpura. HC Naib Singh had gone to the house of respondents No.2 and 3 and enquired as to why Sonia was not allowed to accompany her husband, then respondents No. 2 and 3 replied that they would send Sonia to her matrimonial home on 15.6.2010 but in support of this allegation, there is no proof. No complaint to the concerned police station. No entry in the roznamcha that petitioner had gone to police station and HC Naib Singh had gone to the house of respondents No.2 and 3. Whenever any one visits the police station with any grievance, then entry is made in the roznamcha and when any police official leaves the police station, then again entry is made in the roznamcha. Copy of entry of roznamcha or complaint is not on the file. Next allegation is that Rs.50,000/- was paid by the father of the petitioner to the parents of Sonia, but regarding payment of Rs.50,000/- to parents of Sonia, no document on the file. If Sonia is the legally wedded Crl.Writ Petition No.1319 of 2010 4 wife of the petitioner, then no question of payment of Rs.50,000/- and if there was payment of Rs.50,000/-, then there should be a receipt. Allegation regarding payment of Rs.50,000/- indirectly shows that Sonia seems to have been purchased against payment without solemnising the marriage. That is why petition for restitution of conjugal right is not being filed. Writ in the nature of habeas corpus is maintainable if some body is in illegal custody of the police or a private person, but in the present case, Sonia is major. She is residing with her parents. No question of illegal detention of Sonia by her parents. When there is specific remedy available to the petitioner to bring back his legally wedded wife, if allegation of petitioner is found to be correct one, then I am of the opinion that present petition was filed with ulterior motive simply to harass respondents No.2 and 3. For the aforesaid reasons, petition without merit is dismissed. 27.7.2010 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE