THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.24257 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Chirumamilla Madhavi .. Petitioner And The Station House Officer, Women Protection cell, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No.24257 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1 only. 2. The relief sought for in the writ petition is as under: “To issue a writ or order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to produce the respondents 5 and 6 before this Court pursuant to the petitioner complaint dated 04.11.2009 with the 1st respondent and hand over the custody of 5th and 6th respondents to the petitioner being a mother for the welfare of the minor children.” 3. The petitioner has married the respondent No.2 on 10.05.1998 and had two children out of their wedlock. Because of the family disputes, on 04.11.2009, the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Station House Officer, Women Protection Cell, Lakadikapul, Hyderabad, seeking custody of her children, who are arrayed as respondents 5 and 6. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the complaint made on 04.11.2009 is placed before us. From the said complaint, it appears that since the date of marriage, the respondent No.2 was insisting for additional dowry. Only in the interest of children, the petitioner has been tolerating the torture meted out by the respondent No.2 for all these years and that subsequently, the respondent No.2 asked for divorce and also trying to kill her. Therefore, she left the house and has been living on her own by doing small time job and even that salary was also sent to the children only. Since the amount was not sent prior to the letter, dated 04.11.2009, the respondent No.2 gave an advertisement in the newspapers to the effect that the petitioner was missing. As a consequence thereof, she was removed from service and for that, the respondent No.2 has been threatening to kill her. Since the relatives of the respondent No.2 belong to the Police Department, the petitioner apprehends that justice will not be done to her. Hence, the petitioner seeks divorce from her husband-respondent No.2 and also to give custody of her children from respondents 2 to 4 through the respondent No.1. 4. But, in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the petition, several other details have been furnished, but those details are not part of the contents of the letter, dated 4.11.2009. It appears that the respondent No.2 is a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force. However, pursuant to the complaint, the respondent No.1 called her husband-respondent No.2 for mediation and the Police conducted counselling and, during the course of the said conciliation, her husband-respondent No.2 abruptly rejected the proposal for the custody of the children and stated that he knew the higher officials in the Police Department. The eventual relief sought for in this writ petition is -- issuance of Writ of habeas corpus against the respondents 1 to 4 to give custody of the respondents 5 and 6, who are no other than the children, pursuant to the complaint of the petitioner, dated 04.11.2009. 5. At the outset, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition for the reason that the petitioner had already made a complaint to the respondent No.1 on 04.11.2009. She also sought the relief in the writ petition that she be given the custody of the children pursuant to her complaint, dated 04.11.2009. Therefore, necessary enquiry is to be conducted by the Police concerned into this matter and, if necessary, register a crime against the respondent No.2. 6. It is not discernible as to why the officials had not taken any action, at least, by registering a crime against the respondent No.2, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner. That ought to have been done at the first instance and the Police have been taking the recourse of conducting conciliation on their own between the wife and the husband, which is not a healthy practice nor desirable, particularly when there is a serious complaint like threatening to do away with the life of the petitioner and also regarding the custody of the children. 7. Therefore, we are of the view that it is imperative for the respondent No.1 to initiate appropriate steps, as provided under law, and proceed further against the respondent No.2. 8. It is further made clear that since the petitioner has already made a complaint, on 04.11.2009, to the respondent No.1, and in view of our direction to the respondent No.1 to initiate necessary steps pursuant to the said complaint, the question of directing the respondent No.1 to give the custody of the children to the petitioner forthwith does not arise. 9. Further, in this context, it is also brought to our notice, by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that, during the course of conciliation, the petitioner-respondent No.2 had given an undertaking to the Superintendent of Police, CID, Women Protection Cell, Hyderabad, on 05.11.2009, to the effect that he will not interfere in the matters of the petitioner and he would also send money towards her maintenance. Further, the respondent No.2 was agreeable to allow the children to stay along with their mother. The said undertaking, which was reduced into writing, does not bear any signature of the attestors or any other authority. Therefore, the same cannot be taken into account by this Court. However, it may be useful for the petitioner in the proposed further action that is likely to be initiated against the respondent No.2, as directed by this Court, by the respondent No.1. In fact, the appropriate steps that ought to have been taken by the petitioner, in order to get the custody of the children, is to approach a competent civil Court, having jurisdiction, as provided under law. 10. When the petitioner is making serious allegations against the respondent No.2 with regard to the demand of additional dowry, but also torture meted out to her, and also keeping the custody of the children with him, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the competent Court and the respondent No.1 is at statutory obligation to proceed, in accordance with, law against the respondent No.2. 11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is closed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Dated: 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 Kvrm