IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30-3-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN H.C.P.No.448 of 2010 G.Suganthi .. Petitioner vs 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponneri Division, Ponneri 601 204. Tiruvallur District. 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri 601 204, Tiruvallur District. 4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 5.The Sub Inspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 6.M.Vetrivel .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the third respondent to secure the petitioner's husband viz., V.Ganesan, aged about 24 years, son of M.Vetrivel and produce him before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Munuswamy For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public Prosecutor for RR1 to 5 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Suganthi has brought forth this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of her husband V.Ganesan. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and looked into the affidavit in support of the petition. 3.Admittedly, the marriage between the spouses took place in the year 2006, and they have been living together for some time. According to the petitioner, he was found missing, and she learnt that he was in the illegal confinement of the sixth respondent, and under the circumstances, she gave a complaint to the fifth respondent police, but of no use, and hence she moved this Court for a writ. 4.In the last hearing, the matter was adjourned to today at the request of the State to get instructions from the fifth respondent police. Accordingly, this day, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that an enquiry was conducted where it would reveal that he is now staying in his native place with the sixth respondent voluntarily, and there is no illegal confinement, and he is ready to live with her provided she comes and joins with him, and all the allegations found therein are false. 5.This Court after looking into the materials available and hearing the Counsel on record is of the view that it is not a fit case where the petitioner could invoke the writ jurisdiction. Here is a case where admittedly there was a marriage between the spouses, and they have been living together for a short time. He is actually in his own house where his father is also living. Now she comes with the false allegation of illegal confinement which is contrary to the real situation. Apart from that, he is willing to live with her provided she comes and joins with him. All would clearly indicate the strained relationship in the matrimony. So long as the allegation made in the affidavit that he is in the illegal confinement of the sixth respondent is found to be false, no question of any more for consideration would arise. Under the circumstances, this petition requires an order of dismissal, and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nsv https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To: 1.The Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ponneri Division, Ponneri 601 204, Tiruvallur District. 3.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponneri 601 204, Tiruvallur District. 4.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pudukkottai, Pudukkottai District. 5.The Sub Inspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukkottai District. 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.R.Munuswamy, Advocate, SR.20856. HCP No.448 of 2010 GS(CO) RVL 07.04.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/