VIKRAM KUMAR BADAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

(2.) It is a classical example of misuse and abuse of concept of habeas corpus. The petitioner is well aware that his wife has left the matrimonial home for the reasons known both to the petitioner and his wife, but has come up with the instant writ petition inviting the Court to exercise of power to issue the writ of habeas corpus to settle the personal score. The averments made in the instant writ petition do not inculcate any sense of wrongful detention of the wife and the child by the opposite party No.4, who is admittedly the brother of the wife.

(3.) A copy of the complaint dtd. 30/4/2025 is annexed as Annexure-4 in the instant writ petition on the allegation that the police authorities refused to accept the said complaint. But we do not find any further steps have been taken by the petitioner securing the receipt of the said complaint by the police authorities. The meaningful reading of the averments made in the instant writ petition does not instill confidence in us that the petitioner is a truthful and/or trustworthy litigant. The Court shall not permit such recalcitrant litigant to abuse or misuse the process concerning the habeas corpus nor should permit any litigant to steal-a-march over the statutory provisions.