Parimala vs The State and Others

M. Chockalingam, J.—Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Mrs. Parimala has brought forth this petition for a writ of habeas corpus for the production of her husband Senthil.

The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that the marriage between herself and the alleged detenu has taken place on 17.9.2003, as a result of which they had got a female born; that they have been living together for a period of six years; that he went to the office on 17.5.2009; but, he did not return; that after making a search, she gave a complaint to the first respondent police on 20.5.2009; but, no steps have yet been taken; that she came to know that he was detained by the respondents 2 to 5, and under the circumstances, she was forced to file this petition before this Court.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice for the first respondent.

A perusal of the available materials and in particular the representation made by the petitioner as found in page 4 of the typed set of papers, would clearly indicate that the petitioner''s husband has married the third respondent as his second wife, and they have been living together. Once such an allegation is made, the petitioner has to move the Court of criminal law if so advised, by way of a private complaint for the bigamous marriage alleged to have been conducted by the petitioner''s husband with the third respondent, and it is not a fit case where the petitioner can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.