CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2009) 03 KAR CK 0043

Smt. Latha Tiwari vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 9 March 2009

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.R. Bannurmath, J · A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 25 of 2009 (Habeas Corpus)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 345 words
1.

Alleging illegal detention of husband Sunil Tiwari, Smt. Latha, the petitioner has filed this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition. According to her, on 25.7.2008, her husband left the house saying that he is going to P.F. Office and thereafter, has not returned back. After making enquiry with friends and relatives, she had lodged a complaint on 12.3.2008 with the jurisdictional Police and they have registered a missing complaint case. Since, he has not been traced out, she filed the present habeas corpus writ petition. Petitioner suspected that her sister-in-law by name Smt. Sunitha Bai and Maternal Uncle Lakshmana Singh, having hand in the sudden disappearance of her husband.

2.

After filing of the writ petition, notice was ordered. Smt. Geetha Menon, teamed Government advocate took notice for respondents 1 and 2 and today the alleged detenue Sri. Sunil Tiwari is produced before us.

3.

In the presence of the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate when we enquired with him, he states that after informing his wife Smt. Latha, he has voluntarily left for his native place Shimoga wherein, he is eking out his living and staying with his ailing mother. According to him, he is not under any detention by any person and was in constant touch with his wife-petitioner. In fact, he states that he has many times asked the petitioner wife to join him. But she refused.

4.

On the other hand, the petitioner complains that he has suddenly left the house and there is no body to look after herself and the child.

5.

In our view, there appears to be some matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the alleged detenue. We cannot go into that question since the scope of writ of habeas corpus is very limited. As we find that the alleged detenue Sri, Sunil Tiwari is not under any detention, the present Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.

The parties are at liberty to take appropriate steps so far as their future married life is concerned.