IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 1841 of 2008 Between: Kotney Satish S/o.Jagga Rao R/o.Sunkara VAri Thota Venkatapuram, Eluru Mandal, Eluru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Rural P.S., Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 Posimreddy Srenivasulu Reddy R/o.D.No.27-2-1703, Aditya Nagar, Pubhavari Veedi, Balaji Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 Posimreddy Sujathamma W/o.Srinivasulu Reddy R/o.D.No.27-2-1703, Aditya Nagar, Pubhavari Veedi, Balaji Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent to produce the petitioner's wife Mrs. Sravanireddy before this Hon'ble Court and handed over to him in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Counsel for the Respondent No.1: The Advocate General The Court at the stage of admission made the following : ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy, J) By means of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production of Mrs. Sravanireddy, the alleged detenue - daughter of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged that the petitioner fell in love with the daughter of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and married her on 17-03-2006 as per Hindu rites and caste customs at Hyderabad and immediately after the marriage, set up family at Hyderabad. When he brought the alleged detenue to Nellore after completion of her MBA examinations, she left his company promising that she would convince her parents about their marriage and thereafter, come and join his company. It is further alleged that since then she has been in wrongful confinement by the parents and he was not allowed to contact her even on telephone. The petitioner filed a private complaint before the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru and the same was forwarded to the 1st respondent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Crime No. 119 of 2007 was registered by the police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 416 and 506 (2) IPC, but the 1st respondent without conducting any enquiry filed final report in the Court stating that the complaint allegations are false. Therefore, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be directed to produce the alleged detenue and set her at liberty forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General. On the private complaint lodged by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, the police after due enquiry filed final report stating that the complaint allegations are false. The petitioner can always file a protest petition against the same and it is for the learned Magistrate to proceed with the matter after examining the parties. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P[1] held thus: “Existence of the writ at the instance of a husband is very rare in English Law, and in India the writ of habeas corpus is probably never used by a husband to regain his wife and the alternative remedy under S.100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is always used. Then there is the remedy of a Civil suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Husbands take recourse to the latter when the detention does not amount to an offence and to the former if it does. In both these remedies all the issues of fact can be tried and the writ of habeas corpus is probably not demanded in similar cases if issues of fact have first to be established. This is because the writ of habeas corpus is festinum remedium and the power can only be exercised in a clear case…………….A writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a man to obtain post session of a woman alleged to be his wife does not issue – as a matter of course. Though a writ of right, it is not a writ of course especially when a man seeks the assistance of the Court to regain the custody of a woman. Before a Court accedes to this request it must satisfy itself at least prima facie that the person claiming the writ is in fact the husband and further whether valid marriage between him and the woman could at all have taken place.” In the light of the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court, the petitioner has to avail the remedies available to him under law and this is not a fit case where this Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction as prayed for by the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Dated: 19-02-2008 ks ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Eluru Rural P.S., Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 Posimreddy Srenivasulu Reddy R/o.D.No.27-2-1703, Aditya Nagar, Pubhavari Veedi, Balaji Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 Posimreddy Sujathamma W/o.Srinivasulu Reddy R/o.D.No.27-2-1703, Aditya Nagar, Pubhavari Veedi, Balaji Nagar, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 Two CCs to the Advocate General (OUT). 5 Two CD copies. [1] AIR 1964 SC 1625