THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.16253 of 2009 Date: 25-9-2009 Between Y.Siva Kishore … Petitioner and 1. The District Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, Chittoor and 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.16253 of 2009 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents 1 and 2-Police to produce the petitioner’s wife-alleged detenue, by name K.Vanitha Sree, daughter of K.Nagur Setty, who is added as respondent No.3, resident of House No.18-5-81, Lakshminagar Colony, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor district before this Court. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner made out in the writ affidavit that he was a classmate of the alleged detenue, who is the daughter of respondent No.3. Both respondent No.3 and the petitioner allegedly fell in love and decided to marry. Since the elders did not agree for the same, both of them got married on 04-6-2009 at Penchalakona and in order to prove the same, he filed some photographs from which, it could be seen that the marriage was performed. 4. It is the further contention that on the day of marriage i.e., on 04-6-2009 himself and the alleged detenue went to Darsi, Prakasam district and stayed with his friends and on 06-6-2009 respondent No.3 and his son, by name Bhargav, along with two Constables came to the house of his friend at Darsi and brought them to Alipiri Police Station, Chittoor district. 5. It is the further allegation that respondent No.2, by name G.Vijaya Kumar, beat him indiscriminately and kept him in the lock-up and allowed respondent No.3 to take away the alleged detenue forcibly along with him and also by giving escort of three constables. Therefore, owing to the unwarranted and illegal action of respondent No.2, interference of this Court is warranted by way of issuing a writ of habeas corpus. 6. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner and the alleged detenue are majors. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2 herein, it has been stated, inter alia, that he caused investigation and in that process, he examined the father of the alleged detenue and also examined one Bharathi, and Teja, who were residing in the house of the father of the alleged detenue. A team consisting of some constables including one Assistant Sub Inspector of Police visited Tirupathi, Tirumala, Chandragiri, Srinivasa Mangapuram, Tiruchanur, Renigunta etc. 7. But, it has been stated in the counter that subsequently, the alleged detenue herself came and joined her parents. 8. It is further stated that basing on the complaint made by the father of the alleged detenue, Crime No.112 of 2009 was registered at Alipiri Police Station, Tirupati under the head ‘Girl Missing’ on 06-6-2009 and investigation was taken up. 9. Upon the directions of this Court on earlier occasion i.e., on 24-8-2009 the girl is produced before this Court. Upon being questioned, she stated in the Court that no doubt, she married the petitioner but she is not willing to join him at all and presently she has been residing with her parents on her own volition. The circumstances under which the alleged detenue allegedly married the petitioner is not the concern of this Court and since admittedly, both the petitioner and the alleged detenue are majors and inasmuch as the alleged detenue expressed her strong desire to live only with her parents, she is at liberty to live wherever she wants including with her parents. 10. The entire material relating to the marriage of the petitioner with the alleged detenue, which is in the shape of photographs and video has been given to the custody of the alleged detenue by the petitioner and the same has been acknowledged by her. 11. In view of the facts recorded above, we see no reason to issue any writ, particularly with that of habeas corpus. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 25th September, 2009. Ak