THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.18118 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) The petitioner, who is the second wife of the alleged detenu, invoked the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to produce her husband, namely, Paladugu Narasimha Rao, who was illegally detained by his daughters, i.e., respondents 4 and 5, before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that she married the alleged detenu after the death of his first wife, on 24.01.2009 and the same was registered with the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam, on 5.02.2009. The alleged detenu is a retired employee of Vijaya Milk Diary, Visakhapatnam. He has two daughters, respondents 4 and 5 herein, through his first wife. They took the alleged detenu forcibly in the month of March 2010 from her house without her consent. In spite of her reporting the matter before the Dundigal Police, no action is forthcoming. Hence, she forwarded the report to the A.C.P. Alwal Sub- Division and the Commissioner of Police in April and May, 2010 about the kidnap of the alleged detenu by respondents 4 and5. Later on, she also complained before the State Human Rights Commission on 25.05.2010 vide S.R.No.7484 of 2010. Thereafter she filed the present writ petition. In response to the notice, the Inspector of Police, Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad, the first respondent herein, filed counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner submitted a petition on 12.05.2010 stating that the daughters and elder son-in-law of the alleged detenue are pressurizing the alleged detenu to desert the petitioner. As the matter pertains to family dispute, a G.D. entry was made and police constables were deputed to the house of the fifth respondent. Subsequently, on 18.05.2010, the fifth respondent submitted a petition stating that since the alleged detenu, who is her father, was not well, he came to her house. Subsequently the petitioner herein came to her house and taken back the alleged detenu. The petitioner is harassing the alleged detenu on petty matters. The fifth respondent had submitted the letter said to have been written by the alleged detenu, dated 14.04.2010 that he is not doing well, to the police. She also filed W.P.No.1294 of 2010 alleging that the police are harassing her at the behest of the petitioner herein. The petitioner deserted the alleged detenu and filed M.C.No.46 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, Vijayawada, which was ended in compromise, where the alleged detenu agreed to pay Rs.1700/- p.m. to the petitioner towards maintenance and used to pay the said amount regularly. Subsequently, the petitioner filed M.C.No.2444 of 2003 and also a private complaint before the II Additional Magistrate, Machilipatnam, which was forwarded to the Chilkalapudi Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was registered by the police as a case in Crime No.103 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 498-A, 447, 427, 452, 506 read with 34 IPC and after due investigation, a report has been filed stating that the allegations made in the complaint are false. Subsequently, the alleged detenu filed O.P.No.448 of 2004 before the Family Court, Vijayawada, seeking divorce from the petitioner herein, which was dismissed on 26.10.2006. The petitioner made a complaint before the Gantasala Police Station, Krishna District, against the paternal grand mother and sister of the fifth respondent and the said complaint was registered as Crime No.32 of 2010 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and after investigation, the same was closed as false. Meanwhile, the petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal and submitted a report on 21.05.2010 and thereafter she filed the present writ petition alleging illegal detention of the alleged detenu by respondents 4 and 5. There are disputes between the petitioner and the alleged detenu. The complaint filed by the fifth respondent discloses that the relationship between the petitioner and the fifth respondent was not cordial, and they are fighting for their rights by instituting various proceedings in the Courts as referred to above. In view of the same, since respondents 4 and 5 denied the allegation of illegal detention of the alleged detenu, and the petitioner has already lodged a complaint with the Police about the missing of her husband, it is for the police to investigate into the said complaint and file appropriate report before the concerned Magistrate. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ___________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J.) _____________ (K.C. BHANU, J.) 17th August, 2009 Js.