R ARUN KUMAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner one Arun Kumar has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to get the relief of a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he married the alleged detenue Sujatha on 3.11.2006; but, the same was objected to by the parents of the detenue; that thereafter, there was a reception on 24.6.2007, from which date they were living together till 17.1.2008; that during the relevant period, she was employed as a Lecturer at Savitha Engineering College, Chennai; that as usual, she went over to the College on 17.1.2008; but, she did not come back in the evening; that the petitioner had a phone call from her stating that she did not want to live with him; that he tried his best to trace her; but, he could not; that thereafter, he received a registered letter with acknowledgement due stating that she was not willing to live with him; that he could not either phone her or her parents; that under the circumstances, he gave a complaint to the second respondent police, and it is also kept pending.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner's Counsel, the understanding of the petitioner is that the parents of the detenue have forcibly detained her, and under the circumstances, it has become necessary to approach this Court for a writ of habeas corpus.

(3.) IN the opinion of this Court, this is a vexatious petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, there was a marriage between the spouses on 3.11.2006. Actually, the reception had taken place after 7 months i.e., on 24.6.2007. According to the petitioner, himself and the detenue were living together happily till 17.1.2008. It is specifically averred that he was informed that she was not willing to live with him; and that the same was followed by a registered letter, wherein she expressed her mind that she was not willing to live with him. Under the circumstances, it would be quite clear that she is not living with him. Thus, there was disturbance in the matrimony. Even the complaint to the second respondent was thoroughly unnecessary. If the petitioner wants to get the company of his wife, then he should have approached the Court of civil law for getting the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights if so advised, instead of filing the present petition, which, in the opinion of this Court, is thoroughly vexatious. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.