THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26582 OF 2007 DATED: 04-2-2008 Between: Dudekula Ismail ……………Petitioner And The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Khammam, Khammam District and nine others ……………Respondents ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy, J) Telegram dated 03-12-2007 sent by the petitioner to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been taken up as a writ petition. In the said telegram, the petitioner stated that he is native and resident of Markapur doing mobiles business and married Sirisha, daughter of Dr. Venkateswarlu at Markapuram on 14-3-2007 before Arya Samaj, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad after converting himself as Hindu and later they lived as husband and wife at Delhi till last week of April, 2007; that Sirisha, the alleged detunue joined Mamatha Medical College, khammam and staying in hostel; that on coming to know about their marriage, his father-in-law took his wife to Kanigiri and wrongfully confined her by foisting criminal cases against him and got arrested and later he was remanded to judicial custody. It is further alleged that the father of the alleged detenue is administering psychotherapy treatment to the alleged detenue so that she forgets the past and marries another person. In response to the notice, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanigii Police Station, Prakasam District filed an affidavit stating that the statement of the alleged detenue recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C clearly discloses that due to the threats administered by the petitioner, a crime was registered against him and that since she was afraid of the petitioner, her father took away her from Khammam and now she is staying at Kanigiri on her own. The statement of the alleged detenue belies the contents of the telegram sent by the petitioner. We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P[1] held thus: “Existence of the writ at the instance of a husband is very rare in English Law, and in India the writ of habeas corpus is probably never used by a husband to regain his wife and the alternative remedy under S.100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is always used. Then there is the remedy of a Civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Husbands take recourse to the latter when the detention does not amount to an offence and to the former if it does. In both these remedies all the issues of fact can be tried and the writ of habeas corpus is probably not demanded in similar cases if issues of fact have first to be established. This is because the writ of habeas corpus is festinum remedium and the power can only be exercised in a clear case…………….A writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a man to obtain post session of a woman alleged to be his wife does not issue – as a matter of course. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course especially when a man seeks the assistance of the Court to regain the custody of a woman. Before a Court accedes to this request it must satisfy itself at least prima facie that the person claiming the writ is in fact the husband and further whether valid marriage between him and the woman could at all have taken place.” In the light of the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner has to avail the remedies available to him under law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Dated: 04-02-2008 ks [1] AIR 1964 SC 1625