Petitioner Hii‘i‘uH (“XDUKT OF ¢HHATTI$GARH AT BILA$PUR IJB: H JJ. Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) No.5870i2010 Honibie $hri Dhirendra Wiisnra 3; ea’bm Sh RM. Ghandrakar -- KE$PGN$ENTS unu, nuu. Hr“ lea 3f Santosh Kurnar Sahu. Near Dani Bada Budhapara Raipur (C.G.) Vs. 1, State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home and Police Affairs Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (63.), 4. Kushal Puri S/o Shesh Puri, aged about 4.5 years, 2. The Senior Superintendent of Poiice. Raipur (C.G.) “The Police Station City Kotwali. Through Station House Officer, City Kotwaii, Raipur (C.G.) Village Birami, P.S. Dangiyavash, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan) U'I about 45 years, Birami. PS. Dangiyavash, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Freseni: Shri MK; Ehaduri, counsei for the petiiioner. Shri UNS Deo, Govt. Advocate for the $tate. 1. Petitioner has med this petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of lndia for issuance of writ oi habeas corpus for production of his , wiie, who left the company of her husband without intimating him.“ ' The petitioner has alleged in the petition that his wife is in iiiegat custody of her uncie (respondent No.4) and father (respondent No.5). 2. From perusal of documents of Annexure—PH, Le. the report lodged by the petitioner with the police, it appears that the wife of the petitioner left his house without intormino him with her uncle. . o R A L o R D E R (03.1:12010) Ashok Puri S/o. Govind Purl, aged about 25 years D’n Clo. Bhart Puri s/o $hesh Puri, aged Viiiage Bini In View of the aiiegation made by the petitioner in the report Iodged before the poiice, we are of the opinion that the allegation that his wtte has been megany detained by her father and uncle is not established and the petitioner has other remedies to establish his conjugal rights. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra v Judge