HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.P.No.30989 of 2011 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) By means of ﬁling this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of writ of habeas corpus for production of his wife Smt. R.B. Radhika, daughter of R.B.Babu Lal, 5th respondent herein, and to set at liberty forthwith. 2. Petitioner claims that he fell in love with Radhika (alleged detenu) who belongs to Marvadi Community and married her on 13-12-2010 in the oﬃce of the Sub- Registrar, Hindupur, Anantapur District, before the Sub Registrar/Marriage Oﬃcer, who certiﬁed their marriage under the Special Marriage Act. While so, the 5th respondent, who is the father of his wife, used to come to their residence, and on 07-11-2011, he along with some of his men came and took his wife against her will. Immediately, when the petitioner went to I town police station to lodge a complaint against the 5th respondent, they refused to register the complaint on the ground that the residence of the 5th respondent falls within the jurisdiction of II town police station. When the petitioner approached II town police station, the police informed that on point of jurisdiction, the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of I town police station. Since he came to know that the parents of the detenu are making eﬀorts to perform second marriage to his wife, he ﬁled the present writ petition. 3. In response to the notice issued to the 5th respondent, today the alleged detenu has been produced before this Court. 4. When this Court is examining the alleged detenu, she has ﬁrmly stated that the petitioner blackmailed her and took her forcibly to the Sub Registrar’s Oﬃce and married her and the marriage was registered. She further states that she is aged more than 21 years and has not been illegally conﬁned by her parents as alleged by the petitioner and she wants to stay with her parents. 5. Since the date of birth of the detenu is 23-02- 1990, she completed the age of 21 years. In view of the ﬁrm assertion made by the alleged detenu before us that she has not been illegally conﬁned and wants to stay with her parents, the question of issuing writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the alleged detenu is illegally conﬁned by the 5th respondent shall not arise. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J _______________________________ Dated:29-11-2011 SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Kvr