THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.6477 of 2010 Date: 15.04.2010 Between: Uppala Vijayalakshmi … Petitioner and The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru, West Godavari, A.P., and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.6477 of 2010 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.1 to 3. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent police to produce her husband, namely Uppala Venkataramana, s/o. late Uppala Babu Rao, aged 30 years, before this Court and set him at liberty, forthwith. 3. Earlier, W.P.No.28286 of 2008 filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief for production of her husband was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.4.2009, with certain observations, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “Since, the alleged detenu is a major, whether he is willing to join the company of the petitioner or not is purely a family dispute between him and the petitioner. The Writ of Habeas Corpus jurisdiction will not attract since the alleged detenu is not illegally confined by anybody. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies by approaching the family Court.” 4. In the above order, nowhere the petitioner and the alleged detenu were directed to be present before the Station House Officer, Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad. 5. Be that as it may, the present writ petition came to be filed alleging that upon the directions of the Court when the petitioner and the alleged detenu went to the Charminar Police Station, giving an undertaking that the alleged detenu, who is the husband of the petitioner, would be brought back within ten days, did not came back. 6. As already noticed, there was no mention in the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.28286 of 2008 directing the parties to be present before the Charminar Police Station. The said writ petition was simply dismissed on the ground that it is purely a family dispute and, therefore, the writ jurisdiction cannot be entertained by this Court. 7. Further more, what is to be noticed is, admittedly, the alleged detenu is a major. Being a major, he has every liberty to live anywhere as per his will and wish, however, subject to the rights of the wife prescribed under law. If the alleged detenu is absconding for any reason, the same can be complained of by the petitioner to the competent Court in an appropriate manner as prescribed under law seeking appropriate relief. 8. The very conduct of the petitioner, who is bent upon filing writ petitions, one after the other, seeking the very same relief whenever her husband is found missing, shows that she is mis-using the process of law. In other words, the conduct of the petitioner is absolutely an abuse of the process of law. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, permission is accorded. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 15.04.2010 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO WRIT PETITION No.6477 of 2010 15.04.2010 (Msr)