- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMIINAL WRIT PETITION NO.842/2010 Aasma Shakeel Khan Pathan, age 20 yrs., occu.labourer, r/o Priyadarshini, Indira Nagar, Near Shubnagar, Aurangabad. ...Petitioner.. Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and nine others. ...Respondents... ..... Shri Ajit B. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.R. Shaikh, APP for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mrs.V.N. Ghanekar, Advocate h/f Shri N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for respondent nos.5 to 10. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 07.10.2010 PER COURT : 1] This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for - 2 - issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to the respondent nos.1 to 4 for producing Shakeel Khan Pathan, husband of the present petitioner, from the custody of the respondent nos.5 to 10. 2] In the petition, there are vague averments in respect of abduction of the husband of the petitioner by the respondent nos.5 to 10 and e1qually vague pleadings in respect of the illegal detention by the respondent nos.5 to 10. However, notice of this petition came to be issued to the respondents and the respondent nos.5 to 10 have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, the respondent nos.5 to 10 at para 7 have clearly stated that they have not illegally detained the husband of the petitioner in their custody. It appears that the respondent nos.5 to 10 contend that on account of disputes between the petitioner and her husband and on account of levelling certain charges against the husband of the petitioner by the petitioner, the husband of the petitioner left the residence. The affidavit in reply further discloses filing of the complaints before the competent authorities. 3] Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner disappeared some time in the year 2007 and practically more than three years have passed and yet the where- abouts of the husband of the petitioner are not known. It appears that the petitioner has made various attempts to trace the where-abouts of her husband, but those attempts have proved to be futile. We, therefore, direct the respondent nos.1 to 4 that if complaints are pending in respect of missing of the husband of - 3 - the petitioner, steps, in accordance with law, be initiated to trace the where-abouts of the husband of the petitioner. Necessary advertisements, both in print media as well as on television, be issued to ensure that appropriate steps are taken for tracing the where-abouts of the husband of the petitioner. 4] With these observations, we dismiss the writ petition. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr710104