HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.P.No.30066 of 2011 Dated: 08-12-2011 Between: Smt.Chinna Munemma …Petitioner AND The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District and others Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.P.No.30066 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) By means of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corups for production of her daughter-Anusha, aged 21 years, before this Court alleging that she has been in illegal custody of respondents 3 to 6. Second respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudur Police Station, Kodumur Circle, Kurnool District filed a counter affidavit stating that neither the petitioner nor her family members approached the police regarding the alleged illegal custody of her daughter by the respondents 3 to 6 herein. On receipt of communication in the writ petition, he caused enquiry into the matter to know the whereabouts of the alleged detenue, that during the course of enquiry, it came to his light that the alleged detenue fell in love with 6th respondent herein, that her parents were not willing to perform her marriage with him and on the other hand, they performed her marriage with her maternal uncle namely, Ramesh Babu against her wish and that after the marriage, the alleged detenue resided with her husband for some time at Gonegandla. Subsequently, she eloped with 6th respondent on 11.2.2011, but her family members traced her, conducted a panchayat among the elders of their community and restored the alleged detenue to the company of her husband. But once again she left the company of her husband and eloped with 6th respondent on 22.10.2011. But it is stated that no complaint as such has been lodged either by the petitioner or by her family members. Respondents 3 to 5 filed a counter affidavit stating that though they tried to contact 6th respondent, he did not respond to their calls and that they are unnecessarily impleaded in the writ petition to harass them and that they are no way connected with the missing of the alleged detenue. No reply has been filed by the petitioner opposing the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. According to the second respondent, marriage of the alleged detenue was performed against her wish forcibly by her parents and therefore, she left the company of her husband. Admittedly, she is a major. That be the case, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedies available to her under the Code of Criminal Procedure to punish the alleged abductor-6th respondent. But it is not a fit case where this Court can exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _______________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) DECEMBER 08, 2011 TSR