IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(Crl.).No. 448 of 2009(S)
1. ABDUL MANAF C.P., AGED 25 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
3. MOOSA KOYA E.P., AGED 48 YEARS,
4. AMINA, W/O.MOOSA KOYA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.JAYARAJ NAMBIAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :04/11/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------------------
W.P(Crl.) No.448 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The petitioner has come to this Court with this application
for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to search for, trace and
produce his wife Hajara and a female child born to him in her,
who, he allegedly apprehends, are being illegally detained by
respondent Nos.3 and 4, the parents in law of the petitioner.
2. It is admitted that the marriage had taken place on
19.08.07. For the first child birth the wife was taken to her
parental home. There she had given birth to a child on 23.08.09.
Not even a period of 3 months has elapsed from the date of
delivery. It is at this juncture that the petitioner has come
before this Court.
3. Why does he apprehend that his wife is under illegal
confinement and detention by her parents? Except to say that
she has not come back home after child birth and that attempts
made by him to get them did not succeed, there is no other
circumstance even suggested which can induce a prima
W.P(Crl.) No.448 of 2009 2
facie satisfaction in the mind of this Court that there is any
element of illegal confinement or detention in this case. We are,
in these circumstances, not satisfied that notice need be ordered
to the respondents in this petition for issue of a writ of habeas
corpus. Evidently and transparently the dispute is one between
the spouses and the dispute is only regarding the time, manner
and the date on which the wife has to return to the petitioner.
We are not satisfied that the situation calls for invocation of the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances,
dismissed. We may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this
Writ petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner
to move the Family Court to insist that his wife should return to
him in accordance with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-