THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No.3278 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma When the matter is taken up for hearing, neither the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner nor the petitioner is present and there is no representation on their behalf. 2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6, who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the alleged detenue, respectively. 3. The petitioner is the father of the alleged detenue and the fourth respondent is his son-in-law. He alleged that subsequent to the marriage of his daughter with the fourth respondent, the fourth respondent had contracted second marriage with another woman, during the time of the pregnancy of his daughter; that he is making arrangements to contract third marriage also with some other woman; that by the said conduct of the fourth respondent, his daughter got mentally upset and she had been illegally detained by the fourth respondent and not allowing either his daughter to come to his house nor he is being allowed to see his daughter. 4. On the contrary, counter-affidavits have been filed, inter alia, refuting all the material averments. 5. However, as per the directions of this Court, the alleged detenue has been produced before this Court today and upon being questioned, she, in unequivocal terms, stated that, no doubt, her husband, the fourth respondent, had contracted second marriage with another woman, but it is only with her consent, and she further refuted the allegation made by the petitioner that her husband is making arrangements to contract third marriage also. She further asserted that she has been absolutely leading a happy life with her husband (the fourth respondent) and there are no disputes whatsoever between her and her husband. 6. In fact, she made certain allegations against the petitioner himself alleging that she kept her gold ornaments in the custody of the petitioner. Now, those ornaments are neither being returned nor the petitioner is giving any account of the same. 7. In view of the specific statement made by the alleged detenue, we are of the view that there is absolutely no truth in the allegations made by the petitioner. 8. Before parting with the case, we are of the view that the petitioner, being the father of the alleged detenue, had unnecessarily created problem by his personal interference in the marital life of the alleged detenue, for the reasons best known to him, and made use of this Court a platform for his selfish goals, which is to be deprecated. 9. The alleged detenue being a mother of two children, admittedly, being a major and in sound state of mind, has the absolute discretion to lead her life in her own way and living together with her husband along with her children, which is the expected way of living by any married woman. We do not find any truth, particularly alleged illegal detention of the alleged detenue, warranting interference by this Court, for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus. 10. For the foregoing, the writ petition fails and is liable be dismissed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to be paid to the alleged detenue by the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. After the matter was heard and the order was passed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner came and insisted to hear him. Though his demand is not proper and contrary to the norms, keeping in view his age, who is an young man, and his emotional mental state, we gave him an opportunity of hearing and after such hearing also, we feel that the order passed by us is absolutely appropriate and holds good. 13. In other words, his submissions are totally irrelevant and are not capable of changing the course of the decision that has been arrived at by us, as above. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________________ JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY 26th February 2010 dr