AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shylendra Kumar, J.—This writ petition by a husband alleging that his wife Smt. Barkathunnisa is in the illegal and forceful custody of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 - relatives of his wife and seeking for her liberation, by issue of a writ of habeas corpus as against the said persons. An advance copy of this writ petition had been furnished at the office of the Advocate General and Sri. H S Chandramouli, learned State Public Prosecutor having intimated the Police-Inspector of HAL Police Station who is impleaded as the fourth respondent in the writ petition, submits that the police had informed the lady about the matter, coming up before the Court today and they found on enquiring she was not under any forceful custody of any other person but was living with her children etc.
She being notified of the matter before the Court, Smt. Barkathunnisa has appeared before the Court. We have enquired Smt. Barkathunnisa regarding her stay. She has stated that she is residing with her children; that she is not under illegal detention of any of her relatives much less she has any complaint or grievances against respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
We are satisfied that the wife of the petitioner is not under any illegal custody or under duress to stay separately from him. Therefore, while there is no scope for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, we wish the parties if they are so desirous to settle the differences between them for a peaceful living.
Before parting with this case, we would like to add a note of caution. Whenever such writ petitions are filed before the Court, particularly, in matters which are more in the nature of a family dispute or a matrimonial dispute and when no criminal act or conduct is involved, the police even assuming that they are being apprised of the pendency of the matter before the Court, should not act in haste and at any rate should not show enthusiasm to arrest or bring any person to the Court with force etc., when the person is not involved in the commission of any offence.
Preventive action is required by the police only when they suspect that crime will be committed unless prevented, person indulging in any criminal act is suspected to evade law. With such observations, we dismiss this petition as not tenable.