THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 25574 OF 2007 DATED: 04-2-2008 Between: Sri A.V. Jagan Mohan Reddy ……………Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Nandigama Police Station, Nandigama, Krishna District and five others ……………Respondents ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy, J) Telegram dated 23-11-2007 sent by the petitioner to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice has been taken up as a writ petition. In the said telegram, the petitioner alleged that he married Tejaswi, the alleged detenue in the month of November, 2006; that during the wedlock she got pregnancy, but due to ill-health she was forced to abort the same and later when she left to her native place on 30-10-2007, her parents forced her to go for an engagement and due to the said shock, he attempted to commit suicide on 15-11-2007, but he survived due to medication at Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad and came to know that the alleged detenue too tried to commit suicide and that she was illegally confined by her parents. In response to the notice, Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station, Krishna District filed an affidavit stating that on receipt of the notice, he enquired the father of the alleged detenue Tejaswi who informed that the petitioner is no way connected with their family members and previously, he used to reside in Nandigama Village and studied in his school up to secondary school studies and his whereabouts are not known to him. He denied the marriage of his daughter with the petitioner and informed that she married one Sreeramaneni Kiran, resident of Ameerpet, Hyderabad on 30-11-2007 and in evidence of the same, he produced the certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad vide Marriage No.588/HM/2007, Vol.NO.29 dated 3-12-2007. According to him, the purpose of sending the telegram by the petitioner to this Court was only to defame his family members. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P[1] held thus: “Existence of the writ at the instance of a husband is very rare in English Law, and in India the writ of habeas corpus is probably never used by a husband to regain his wife and the alternative remedy under S.100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is always used. Then there is the remedy of a Civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Husbands take recourse to the latter when the detention does not amount to an offence and to the former if it does. In both these remedies all the issues of fact can be tried and the writ of habeas corpus is probably not demanded in similar cases if issues of fact have first to be established. This is because the writ of habeas corpus is festinum remedium and the power can only be exercised in a clear case…………….A writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a man to obtain post session of a woman alleged to be his wife does not issue – as a matter of course. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course especially when a man seeks the assistance of the Court to regain the custody of a woman. Before a Court accedes to this request it must satisfy itself at least prima facie that the person claiming the writ is in fact the husband and further whether valid marriage between him and the woman could at all have taken place.” In the light of the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner has to avail the remedies available to him under law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Dated: 04-02-2008 ks [1] AIR 1964 SC 1625