IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 17-3-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN H.C.P.No.427 of 2010 Nivetha Gopalan .. Petitioner vs 1.The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2.The Inspector of Police V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police Anti Dowry Cell Thousand Lights Chennai 600 006. 4.M.Sivathanu .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to locate the whereabouts of the petitioner's husband Dr.S.Gopalan, S/o.Sivathanu, aged about 29 years, and to produce him before this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajpandyan For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public Prosecutor for RR1 to 3 Mr.M.Sivathanu Party-in-person – R4 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Nivetha Gopalan has brought forth this petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce her husband Dr.S.Gopalan. 2.On notice, the fourth respondent has appeared before this Court. He has filed his counter. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The case of the petitioner is that the marriage took place on 7.5.2009; that he was in foreign country; that he came down to India; that after making arrival at the airport at Bangalore, he came to Madras; that he was actually not found at present; that she also apprehends that he has been in the illegal custody of the fourth respondent, and hence a complaint was given on 22.2.2010; that the second complaint was also given on 27.2.2010; but no steps have yet been taken, and hence she was forced to apply to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. 4.The fourth respondent, a practising Advocate has appeared before the Court and filed a counter. 5.The crux of the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent is that it is true that there was a marriage between them; that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law; that his son who married her was actually employed in a foreign country; that now the proceedings have been initiated by his son in the Family Court, Chennai, for divorce, and it is also pending; and that the petitioner herein having appeared before that Court has now come forward with this petition with all false allegation invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6.Now, at this juncture, when the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a representation to withdraw the petition, the fourth respondent made all the above submissions. 7.The Court after hearing the submissions made is of the considered opinion that the petition is vexatious. After knowing the fact that he is employed in foreign country, and he has also taken proceedings for divorce, and she has also appeared before the Family Court, she has now brought this petition before this Court. All would clearly indicate that it has been wantonly and deliberately done, and it is an abuse of process of Court. This Court cannot tolerate such things to happen, and it is a fit case where interest of justice would be met if cost is awarded. Hence the petitioner is directed to make a payment of cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees thousand only) to the Legal Aid, Madras, attached to the High Court. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of. This Petition having been posted on 18.3.2010 under the caption "for being mentioned" pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17.3.2010 and made herein and in the presence of the aforesaid advocates the Court made the following Order: (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The matter comes under the caption "for being mentioned". 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that she is a deserted woman; that proceedings are already pending before the Court; that she was not able to give proper instructions, and hence that part of the order of this Court awarding cost, has got https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to be cancelled. 3.After hearing the learned Counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that that part of the order as to cost made on 17.3.2010, could be cancelled. Accordingly, the same is ordered to be cancelled. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar nsv To: 1.The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2.The Inspector of Police V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station Villivakkam, Chennai 600 049. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Police Anti Dowry Cell, Thousand Lights Chennai 600 006. 4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.M.Sivathanu 4th Respondent Sr 17546 +1cc to Mr.S.Rajpandan, Advocate Sr 17962 NG(CO) km/1.4. HCP No.427 of 2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/