PERUMAL Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner either in person or through his counsel when the matter was taken up this morning and hence, the matter was adjourned to 2.15 p.m. Even now there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he married one Soundari in the year 1994, but at the ill-advise of the respondents 3 and 4, his wife refused to live with him and sought for maintenance. As a result, the petitioner filed O.P. No. 1403 of 2001 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Madras allowed the petition by order dated 30.7.2002.

(3.) Complaining that, in spite of the said order dated 30.7.2002 made in O.P. No. 1403 of 2001, the petitioner is not permitted by the respondents 3 and 4 to meet his wife, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's wife MRs. Soundari and to set her at liberty.