Judgment :- V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. These two writ petitions, viz. H.C.P. Nos.607 and 687 of 2003 shall be governed by this judgment. The first mentioned writ petition is at the instance of one Mrs. Pabbu Penchalarathnamma, seeking the custody of her husband Pabbu Venkateswarlu from one Ethiraj @ Srinivasan and Mrs. Eswaramma, respondents 4 and 5 respectively. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner points out that she is the legally wedded wife of the detenu, that there are three children out of this wedlock and that after the marriage, they were residing in Nellore. She, however, further suggests that the relations between her family and her husband’s family were strained on account of the alleged demand of dowry by the husband’s family and that there was an attempt on her life also. She further says that she proceeded against the relatives of the husband on account of their constant demands of dowry and ultimately, she moved to her parents’ place and from there she was prosecuting a Hindu marriage petition under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriages Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It is contended by her that in that petition there is an order of maintenance pendente lite for Rs.2,500/- per month and that the detenu is avoiding to pay even that amount. It is then contended that on 10-3-2003 when the matter was fixed for the attendance of the detenu, the detenu never turned up and from then onwards he is not to be seen. It is also contended that the petitioner was constantly receiving threats from respondents 4 and 5 that she should withdraw the case. She then contends that the respondents should be directed to produce the custody of the detenu without specifying in her petition as to from whom precisely the custody is sought. 3. The other writ petition is filed by the parents of the said detenu, who are the residents of Nellore. They say in their petition, amongst other things, that Pabbu Venkateswarlu was to attend the court at Chennai and, therefore, he left Nellore in the night hours by train with Rs.10,000/- on his person probably, to pay the arrears of maintenance money into the court and thereafter he is not to be seen. They apprehend that he is in the illegal custody of his wife or her family. They apprehend that he is in the illegal custody of his wife or her family. In the writ petition, there are number of other allegations made against the wife and the whole history has been given regarding the pending matrimonial litigation between the husband and wife. It is apparent therefrom that even the husband has filed a petition under Sec.9 of the Hindu Marriages Act for restitution of conjugal rights in Nellore court. It is brought to our notice that the proceedings before the Nellore court has been stayed by the Supreme Court at the instance of the wife who sought the transfer of that matter to Chennai to be tried along with the application filed by her for restitution of conjugal rights. 4. In short, both the parties are claiming the custody of Pabbu Venkateswarlu, indirectly indicting each other. Under such circumstances, there will be no point in proceeding with these writ petitions for the simple reason that it is obvious that the said detenu is not in anybody’s custody. The wife would not venture to keep the detenu in her own custody and yet proceed against him in the court of law to recover the arrears of maintenance from him. It has come during the arguments that in the past since the maintenance was not paid, the husband was arrested and put under the civil prison in Central Prison, Chennai but was released thereafter under some mysterious circumstances for which, the concerned authorities are facing contempt action at the instance of the Presiding Officer of the First Additional Family Court, Chennai. At the same time, it goes without saying that respondents 4 and 5 have also absolutely no hand in the matter because they have specifically denied that they are having the custody of the detenu. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner in H.C.P. No.607 of 2003 could not substantiate her plea that the detenu may be in the illegal custody of respondents 4 and 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also points out that respondents 4 and 5 were interrogated by the police and the police found no one is illegally detained in their place. Therefore, there is no point in proceeding against respondents 4 and 5 also. 5. We have already indicated that the detenu could not be in the illegal custody of the wife. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also points out that respondents 4 and 5 were interrogated by the police and the police found no one is illegally detained in their place. Therefore, there is no point in proceeding against respondents 4 and 5 also. 5. We have already indicated that the detenu could not be in the illegal custody of the wife. After all, detenu is a fully grown individual, father of three children and a businessman himself. There is every likelihood that the detenu is trying to stay away from his family perhaps to avoid the liability to pay the maintenance which liability has arisen now beyond Rs.1,00,000/-. 6. Under the circumstances, we would order the disposal of both the writ petitions by directing the police, respondents 1 to 3 in H.C.P. No.607 of 2003, to keep on searching the detenu by registering a ‘man missing case’. We also make it clear that it is always open for the wife, petitioner in H.C.P. No.607 of 2003, to take such steps to apprehend the said detenu by legal means which are available to her in law. The writ petition filed by the wife is disposed of. 7. The parents of the detenu, petitioner in H.C.P. No.687 of 2003, may seek the help of the concerned local police for searching their son. However, since he is not in the custody of the wife or her family, we do not deem it necessary to issue any writ for production of the detenu. 8. With these observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of.