IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 17048 of 2008 Between: M. Siva Shanker, S/o. Gurrappa, Princeton Engineering College, Gatkesar, Ranga Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Jareena Banu, W/o. M. Siva Shanker, r/o. 7/3866, Srinivas Nagar, Proddatur, Kadapa District. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 3 The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Proddatur, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondent No.2 & 3 to produce the respondent No.1 in this Hon'ble Court, record her statement, set her at liberty to enable her to live with the petitioner to lead happy conjugal life and it is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court pleased to grant the necessary protection to the Petitioner and the respondent No.1 for some time to enable them to lead trouble free married life and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. S.R.SANKU & KAVITI MURLI KRISNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : -None- Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17048 of 2008 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to produce respondent No.1 viz., Smt. Jareena Banu, w/o. M.Siva Shanker, aged about 20 years, resident of 7/3866, Srinivas Nagar, Proddatur, Kadapa District, before this Court, record her statement and set her at liberty to enable her to live with the petitioner to lead happy conjugal life and also grant the necessary protection to the petitioner and respondent No.1 for some time to enable them to lead trouble free married life. 3. The factual background, which is not in dispute, is that earlier writ petition W.P.No.18800 of 2007 was filed by both the petitioner and the alleged detenu, who is the first respondent herein, seeking protection since their lives were under threat at the hands of the elders. Upon adjudication, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by order, dated 12-11-2007, passed interim orders directing interim custody of the alleged detenu in a rescue home. The said order had been challenged by the father of the alleged detenu by way of writ appeal W.A.No.1025 of 2007 and a Division Bench of this Court, by order, dated 07-12-2007, disposed of the said appeal, the operative portion of which reads as under: “Since the writ petitioner No.1 is a major and her date of birth according to school certificate is 26th June 1988, therefore, she is free to choose the place where she wants to live. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petitioner No.1 is at liberty to go anywhere she likes. Since the writ petitioner No.1 has made a statement that she was not kidnapped or was not taken away by writ petitioner No.2 by force or deceit, we feel no further orders are necessary to be passed in the writ petition. The investigating agency shall take into consideration the statement made by writ petitioner No.1 before this Court, while investigating the matter under Crime No.137 of 2007 of II Town Police Station, Proddutur, Kadapa District. Writ appeal and the writ petition are accordingly disposed of.” 4. From the above, it is obvious that both the petitioner and the alleged detenu, in particular, are majors and in view of the said fact, the Division Bench of this Court had categorically found that the alleged detenu was a major and she has every right to live according to her wish wherever she wants. It was also specifically pointed out by the Division Bench that the alleged detenu had made a statement that she was not kidnapped or taken away by the petitioner by force or deceit, and hence no orders were passed in the said writ petition. However, directed the investigating agency to take into account the statement made by the alleged detenu before this Court for investigating the matter under Crime No.137 of 2007 of II Town Police Station, Proddatur, Kadapa District. 5. Now, again the petitioner, who allegedly married the alleged detenu, filed the present writ petition on the ground that the alleged detenu was forcibly detained by her parents and that she is desirous of leading marital life with him and to that effect several messages through Mobile Phone were sent and representations were also made to the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District and, therefore, seeks production of the alleged detenu before this Court. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, Proddatur, Kadapa District, representing the third respondent herein, stating that the matter was referred as a mistake of fact and final report was filed before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Proddatur, in R.C.No.33/2008, dated 24- 03-2008. It is further stated that the alleged detenu joined her parents on her own will and thereafter she is residing with them. 7. As already pointed out, in the earlier round of litigation in W.A.No.1025 of 2007, a Division Bench of this Court had directed the investigating agency to take up investigation while giving liberty to the alleged detenu to live wherever she likes, inasmuch as, she is a major and she has complete liberty to lead a life of her liking. That being the case, we are of the opinion that this Court cannot interfere with the liberty of the alleged detenu and she is at liberty to live anywhere and move freely according to her will and wish. 8. In view of the said facts and for the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to the dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is always at liberty pursue his remedies, if any, elsewhere, in accordance with law. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 21-08-2008 Msr. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 2 The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Proddatur, Kadapa District. 3. Two CCs to the Advocate General, Government of A.P., High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT). 4. Two C.D. copies. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17048 of 2008 21-08-2008 (Msr)