THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.28763 of 2009 Date: 18.02.2010 Between : A.R.J. Vengopala Charyulu … Petitioner And Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Department of External Affairs, New Delhi and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.28763 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking production of respondent Nos.7 to 10 before this Court and set respondent Nos.8 and 9 at liberty and handover their custody to the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he married to the 7th respondent and out of the wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters, who are respondent Nos.8 and 9 herein. It is evident from the affidavit as well as the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner that he along with his wife and children left for Australia in search of a job in the year 2004. Thereafter, upon a call by his employer in India (Life Insurance Corporation of India) the petitioner came back to India. Later, respondent Nos.7 to 9 have also came back to India in 2004 itself. Again on 26.2.2007, the 7th respondent-wife along with respondent Nos.8 and 9, left for Australia and later she secured a job as Transit Officer in Queensland Railways. Therefore, she stayed back in Australia along with her grown up daughters and did not return back. 4. It appears from the information furnished by the 7th respondent-wife to the learned Advocate General’s office that she left to Australia along with her daughters in 2007 and all the family members along with the petitioner came to Airport to see her off, which shows the keenness of the petitioner in sending his wife and children to Australia to secure a job there. 5. Now, in the year 2009, it appears that the petitioner developed a doubt that his wife developed a sort of illicit intimacy with respondent No.10 in Australia, admittedly who is also an Indian and a good friend of the petitioner. Therefore, he gave a police complaint in the month of October, 2009 and the same was registered as Crime No.48 of 2009 of L.B. Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad and investigation is going on. 6. The most intriguing fact is that when the petitioner sent his wife and children to Australia way back in 2007 and when she did not return back, why he did not give any complaint to the police. Surprisingly, the main grievance of the petitioner now is that the 7th respondent-wife is totally under the spell of the 10th respondent and hence she is not coming back to India. It also appears that the 7th respondent-wife gave a legal notice to the petitioner to the effect that there is already a separation between the petitioner and herself. Therefore, the present complaint is lodged before the police. 7. The petitioner further brought to the notice of this Court that the Embassy of Australian Government also asked the consent of the petitioner, being the father of respondent Nos.8 and 9, for granting Visas to them. But, no such consent appears to have been given by the petitioner so far. However, this is totally a new aspect in this case, which is not relevant in a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 8. From the above, it is obvious that respondent Nos.7 to 9, who are wife and daughters, respectively, of the petitioner, have been willingly staying in Australia. The other aspects of the alleged illicit intimacy of the 7th respondent-wife with respondent No.10 has no basis nor even if there is any such relation, this Court cannot go into that aspect in the present proceedings. In that regard, investigation has to be made elsewhere, but not in the present proceedings or by this Court. 9. Nextly, if the petitioner seeks custody of the children, there is a specific procedure postulated under law to which the petitioner can avail of in an appropriate Court having the jurisdiction. We further clarify that in addition to the criminal complaint given to the police, the petitioner can seek redressal of his grievance in an appropriate forum as permissible under law seeking custody of the children or wife, as the case may be. 10. In view of the above facts, the question of issuing any Writ of Habeas Corpus does not arise and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid to the Member Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 12. We make it clear that the above observations shall not be construed as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _____________________________ JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY 18.02.2010 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.28763 of 2009 18.02.2010 (Msr)