IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3867 of 2009 Between: Nizamuddin S/o.Mohd. Nasiruddin Ahmed R/o.H.No.6-1-272, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Zone, Hyderabad. 4 Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 5 Station House Officer, Police Station Saifabad, Hyderabad. 6 Sri Md. Habeeb Ur Rahman Area-Lamphal, Lamphalpet, Pine Code - 795001, Manipur State. R/o.H.No.4-6-2B, Minuthong Golapati Masjid Achouba Road, Imphal East Manipur - 795001. 7 Zabin Farhad D/o.Sri Md.Habeeb Ur Rahman R/o.H.No.4-6-2B, Minuthong, Golapati Masjid, Achouba Road, Imphal East Manipur - 795001. .....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, Order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents 1 to 6 to produce the 7th respondent before this Hon'ble Court and record her statement thereby set her at liberty consequently allow the petitioner and 7th respondent to live and lead a happy matrimonial life in future and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BRAHMADANDI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3867 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking production of the seventh respondent/wife, who is in the illegal custody of the sixth respondent/father-in-law, before this Court and set her at liberty. 3. The facts, in brief, are that seventh respondent is the wife of the petitioner and it appears that the marriage of the petitioner and seventh respondent was performed against the will of the parents of both sides. However, the petitioner and the seventh respondent are leading a happy marital life eversince the date of their marriage on 12.12.2008. While so, the sixth respondent, who is the father-in-law of the petitioner and father of the seventh respondent, requested the petitioner to send his daughter along with him to Manipur in order to have the company of the seventh respondent for some time and accordingly the petitioner sent his wife along with the sixth respondent. Despite the said promise, the sixth respondent did not sent his wife so far. Inspite of sending several messages by the petitioner through telephone etc., there was no response from the sixth respondent. It is also stated that the seventh respondent sent a telephonic message to the petitioner on 27.1.2009 stating that she was totally uncomfortable with her parents and she wants to come and join the company of the petitioner. Since his efforts did not yield any result, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking production of his wife before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner went to Saifabad Police Station and gave an oral complaint, which was not taken cognizance of by the police, and there was no further action initiated by the police on such complaint. The learned counsel also stated that when notices were sent to respondent Nos.6 and 7, as directed by this Court, the sixth respondent sent a reply through his counsel requesting the petitioner to send the entire material filed before this Court and accordingly the entire material was sent by post. But, no proof is filed to that effect. 5. The veracity or otherwise of the message sent by the petitioner’s wife to the effect that she is totally uncomfortable with her parents and wants to join the company of the petitioner is not known nor it is for this Court to go into that aspect. Notwithstanding the factual position as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only fact remains on record is that neither the wife of the petitioner is sent by her father, nor she made any effort to come and join the petitioner. Therefore, the fact that has to be investigated into is as to whether really the seventh respondent- wife is willing to come and join the petitioner or whether the sixth respondent, father-in-law of the petitioner, has unlawfully detained the seventh respondent to join the company of the petitioner. 6. This Court cannot go into all these questions. Further, if really the sixth respondent took away the wife of the petitioner on the pretext that she would be sent back within a few days and detained her illegally against her will, the same amounts to an offence punishable under Section 365 I.P.C., and the same cannot be investigated into by this Court, nor a Writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued, when an efficacious and alternative remedy is provided under the Statute. 7. Therefore, we cannot go into all these aspects and the best course available to the petitioner is to approach the police concerned as contemplated under the law and make a complaint for redressal of his grievance. Upon such complaint being made, it is needless to mention that the police have to set the law into motion and investigate into the matter in an appropriate manner and take such steps that are required under the law. It is also needless to mention that if the police did not act appropriately, it is again open for the petitioner to approach the competent Court as contemplated under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ D.S.R.VARMA, J ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 10-07-2009 NOTE:- Issue C.C. as early as possible. (B/O) Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3867 of 2009 10-07-2009 (Msr)