IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18010 of 2008 Between: Syed Ghouse Basha S/o.Bashu Janardhan Reddy Colony Venkateswarapuram Nellore District P.S.R Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt of A.P Rep.by its Prl Secretary Home Department Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Superintendent of Police Nellore P.S.R Nellore District 3 The Station House Officer V Town Police Station Vedayapalem Nellore Town P.S.R Nellore District 4 Patan Hayathunisa D/o.P.Najeer Near Water Tank Gandhi Nagar Nellore P.S.R Nellore 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 to issue appropriate writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in interfering the Civil/Materimornal disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and forcing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs 2,50,000/- to the 4th respondent as wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to interfere in the Civil/Matrionial disputes between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in interfering with the civil/matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the fourth respondent and forcing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the fourth respondent as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, and consequently, to direct the third respondent not to interfere into the civil/matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. It appears that the parties are Muslims by religion. The petitioner married fourth respondent in the year 1998 as per Muslim Religion Customs. However, according to the petitioner, he pronounced Talaq and communicated the same and he had also sent the Iddat amount and also Mehar to the fourth respondent as per Muslim Law and Custom. While that being so, the fourth respondent seems to have given a complaint against the petitioner to the third respondent and on the said complaint the police came to the house of the petitioner at 1-30 AM on 12-08-2008 and taken him to the police station forcibly and kept in the lock up till the mid night of 13-08-2008 and thereafter allowed him to leave the police station. Though no crime was registered against him, according to the petitioner, the third respondent has forcibly obtained his signatures on a written paper to the effect that he had to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within two months to the fourth respondent towards compensation. According to the petitioner, three of his neighbours also witnessed the incident. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police are interfering into the civil/matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the fourth respondent though there is a customary divorce as per Muslim Law. Therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2 denying the allegations made by the petitioner. However, it is stated that on 12-08-2008 the fourth respondent gave a report at V Town Police Station for the purpose of conducting counseling with her husband as to the matrimonial disputes. On knowing this, the petitioner through his Advocate submitted this petition with false allegations against the police, so that the police would not summon him for counseling. The Sub-Inspector of Police, V Town Police Station never neither visited the house of the petitioner nor summoned him to the police station at any point of time. The allegations that the petitioner was taken forcibly to the police station and was made to sit in the lock up till mid night of 13-08-2008 and thereafter he was allowed to leave the police station are all false. Further, the allegation that the third respondent forcibly obtained his signatures on a written paper to the effect that he has to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within two months to the fourth respondent towards compensation is also not correct. It is further asserted that the second respondent has issued general instructions to all the Station House Officers in the District not to interfere with the civil disputes. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the civil/matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the fourth respondent. However, this will not preclude the respondents from taking any action, if there is any crime registered against the petitioner. No order as to costs. __________________ 18th November, 2008 SKM