THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.M.P.No.30133 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.22508 of 2009 W.P.M.P.No.30133 of 2009: Between Kareem Unisa (Previous Name Lingala Srisha … Implead Petitioner and 1. The Commissioner of Police, Office at Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad and 2 others … Respondents/Respondents 4. Smt. Lingala Sharada … Respondent/Petitioner W.P.No.22508 of 2009: Between Lingala Sharada … Petitioner and 1. The Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.M.P.No.30133 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.22508 of 2009 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri V.V.N.Narasimham, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 and 2; and Sri Mohammed Rahail Ahmed, learned Counsel appearing for the implead petitioner/alleged detenue (respondent No.4). 2. The miscellaneous petition, filed under Rule 16 of the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1971 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to implead the petitioner therein viz., Kareem Unisa (previous name Lingala Srisha) as respondent No.4 in the writ petition, is allowed. 3. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce the detenue, namely, Lingala Shirisha, D/o.L.Narsing Rao, aged about 19 years, R/o.House No.19-1-912/A/2/33, Murali Nagar, Puranapool, Hyderabad before this Court forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 4. Upon directions of this Court, the alleged detenue has been produced before this Court. 5. It is the averment in the writ petition that the alleged detenue, who is the daughter of the petitioner, was forcibly detained by respondent No.3. 6. Upon being questioned in the open Court, the alleged detenue, who is present before this Court, stated that she married respondent No.3, by name Syed Mahmood. 7. In fact, miscellaneous petition W.P.M.P.No.30133 of 2009 has been filed by the alleged detenue to get herself impleaded as respondent No.4, which is allowed. 8. The alleged detenue further stated in the Court that she married respondent No.3 on her own volition and absolutely there was no pressure whatsoever either from respondent No.3 or his relatives and since it is not being liked by her parents, she seeks protection from her parents. Of course, this aspect cannot be gone into by this Court. 9. As per the school record placed before us, the alleged detenue is a major. Therefore, this Court cannot compel respondent No.4/alleged detenue to go along with the petitioner. Further, being a major, she has every liberty to lead the kind of life as she chooses. 10. However, in order to verify further we have examined the detenue/respondent No.4 in the chambers where again she stated that she married respondent No.3 out of her own volition. There was absolutely no pressure and she was not at all inclined to stay with her parents. In view of this fact, we cannot pass any orders as prayed for in this writ petition, inasmuch as respondent No.4/alleged detenue is at liberty to move freely. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 29th October, 2009. Ak