HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (H.C.) No.535 of 2009 PETITIONER: Manoj Singh Thakur, S/o Shri Ramayan Singh, aged about 33 years, R/o Arvind Nagar, New Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Tahsil 8: Distt. Bilaspur (0.6.) Versus 1. State of Chhatti3garh, Through the RESPONDENTS: Secretary‘ Home Affaks Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Genera! of Police, Raipur (3.6.) 3. The Superintending of Police, Biiaspur (so) 4. The Superintending of Police, Dantewacla (C.G.) 5. The Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 6. The Station House Officer, Police Station Sukma, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 7. Smt. Mamta Singh, S/o Shri Lal Prasad Singh (W/o Shri Manoj Singh Thakur), aged about 25 years, R/o Shanti’ Nagar Ward, Sukama, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) 8. Lal Prasad Singh, S/o Unknown, aged about 60 years, R/o Shanti Nagar Ward, Sukama, Distt. Dantewada (C.G.) {Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Bharat Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. U.N.S. Deo, Govt. Advocae or the State/respondents No.1 to 6, on avance copy. - Honble Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha & ’ Division Bench: ’ Honble Mr. T.P. SharmaL JJ ORAL ORDER (29-1 -2009) - The following order of this Court is passed by,Sunil Kumar Sinha, J: 1. Heard on admission. t f d -?é 2, Petitioner Manoj Singh Thakur has med this petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus on the ground that his wife namely, Smt. Mamta Singh (respondent No.7) has been illegaily detained by her parents & brothers. 8. The petitioner was married to respondent No.7 on 11-2-2007 and there was a maie child out of their wedlock. On 25—6-2008, the brother of respondent No.7 namely, Ashutosh Singh came to the petitioner’s house and said that he wants to take his sister with him for a week. On this, the petitioner aiiowed respondent No.7 to go to her parents’ place for a week. lt is submitted that thereafter, respondent No.7 did not return to the company of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner had to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of his conjugal rights. Perusal of para 4 of the said {x petition (Annexure P-2), tiled under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, would show that .on one day the petitioner himself had gone to his in-law’s place and had requested respondent No.7 to come to his house, but respondent No.7 clearly denied to go with the petitioner. The petitioner further pleaded in para 7 of the said petition that respondent No.7 is not ready to live in the company of the petitioner as his wife without any reason and had denied to maintain the conjugal relations, therefore, he has no remedy left except to file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. ln View of the above, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, where on the documents filed by the petitioner himself, it is clear that respondent No.7 is willfully denying to come to the company of the petitioner, it cannot be said that she has been wrongfully restrained by her family members i.e. parents & brothers. ln such a situation petition for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus would not lie. ' i 5. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia for issuanceof a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. 6, Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed ‘ summarily. - l Sdl- '74: T.P Sharrna Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Judge Soma