A writ petition for habeas corpus was dismissed at the stage of admission. The Court relied on a letter from the wife stating her fear and unwillingness to appear in Court, holding that as an adult, she has the right to live independently.
Directions to produce the wife and secure her safe custody were not granted; the petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
Writ Petition No.4591 of 2009
Date: 16-12-2009
Between
Sardar Akbal Singh
… Petitioner
and
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Station House Officer, Kharkhana P.S., in turn rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad and 2 others
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO
Writ Petition No.4591 of 2009
Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.)
Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent No.1.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of habeas corpus to direct respondent No.2 to produce his daughter respondent No.3, who is the wife of the petitioner, forthwith before this Court and direct her safe custody to such place as she deems herself secure and proper.
3. The grievance in this writ petition is that respondent No.2 had taken away illegally the wife of the petitioner on the ground that the alleged detenue is his daughter.
4. It appears that the alleged detenue is the daughter of respondent No.2 who married the petitioner much against the will and wish of respondent No.2. As a consequence, the whereabouts of the detenue are not known. Respondent No.1, despite a complaint made by the petitioner, is not successful in tracing out the alleged detenue. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1 that on 03-12-2008 the alleged detenue approached Neredmet Police Station and lodged a complaint against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 496 and 506 of IPC. So also, the petitioner lodged a complaint with respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 365 of IPC against respondent No.2.
6. Be that as it may, when the notice was served on the alleged detenue, it is reported by the learned Counsel for petitioner that a letter dated 22-6-2009 has been addressed to him by the alleged detenue stating that despite the notice that was directed to be served on her, she is not willing to come to the Court. However, she expressed her further intention not to come to Secunderabad/Hyderabad since she was under a serious threat perception at the hands of the petitioner as well as his parents and that was the reason why she had been to Ranchi and staying in the address at which the notice was served. She further stated that as a woman of 24 years old, she has every right to move around anywhere and to marry anybody or reject any person.
7. From the said letter, it appears that she is not at all interested to attend the Court and express her view before the Court.
8. Upon being so represented by the learned Counsel for petitioner, this Court verified from the Registry as to whether any such letter was addressed to the High Court or not. Upon such
direction, it appears that a copy of the said letter has been addressed to the Registry. Therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve the version of the learned Counsel for petitioner.
9. That apart, the learned Counsel for petitioner also not present or there is any representation, despite several opportunities have been given.
10. From the conduct of the alleged detenue, it appears that she is freely moving and there is absolutely no danger to her or any reason for the petitioner to apprehend any such danger to her and since she is a major, she has every right to live on her own. Except the letter addressed by her to the learned Counsel for petitioner and marking a copy of the said letter to the Registry of the High Court, we have no reason to disbelieve the contents of the said letter allegedly addressed by the detenue. Therefore, we do not propose to continue this writ petition any longer.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission.
___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA
____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 16th December, 2009. Ak
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition filed for habeas corpus to secure the wife's safety can continue when the wife explicitly requests not to appear in Court due to safety concerns.
Whether a major woman has the right to live independently and move freely without danger when she independently expresses willingness to do so.
Whether the writ petition should be continued at the stage of admission when the detenue has indicated no interest in attending the Court.
Sardar Akbal Singh
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Station House Officer, Kharkhana P.S.
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
D.S.R. Varma
R. Kantha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
