JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Corpus Laxman and Sita are present in Court today. 3. As per facts stated in this Habeas Corpus petition, petitioner is son-in-law of Corpus Laxman as he is married to Laxman's one daughter Rekha. Laxman was initially married to one Chhothi Devi who gave birth to Rekha. It is alleged that Smt. Chothi Devi died about 16 years ago and thereafter, Laxman contracted marriage with Smt. Sita. Smt. Sita gave birth to Santosh and Sangeeta, aged about 13 years and 11 years respectively and also gave birth to one son Dinesh who is aged about 8 years. 4. It is alleged that respondent no.4 Saka Ram's father, in his childhood had promised that he will marry Saka Ram with Sita. It is alleged that said Saka Ram kidnapped Laxman, Sita, Santosh, Sangeeta and Dinesh. It is alleged that a report was given to Police Station, Kotwali Jaisalmer but no efforts were made by the police on this report submitted to P.S. Kotwali, Jaisalmer. Petitioner also sent a communication/notice to the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer through his Advocate Mahindra Kumar. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted this Habeas Corpus petition. 5. Notices were issued and reply has been filed on behalf of the State stating that Laxman married with Smt. Chhothi Devi. Smt. Chothi Devi died eight years back. It is stated in the reply that Smt. Sita is wife of Saka Ram resident of Jalore district. Their marriage took place 18 years back and four children were born to Saka Ram and Smt. Sita who are Santosh, Sangeeta and Dinesh and one child died. It is stated that from the investigation, it was found that respondent no.4 was habitual drunkard and he used to beat Smt. Sita. Ultimately, Smt. Sita left respondent no.4 Saka Ram and contracted marriage with Laxman. 6. According to State, statement of Laxman, Sita, Santosh, Sangeeta and Dinesh were recorded and it was found that they were not illegally detained by anybody. 7. We have perused the statement recorded by Investigating Officer of Laxman, Sita, Santosh, Sangeeta and Dinesh. We also interrogated Laxman and Sita in Court. 8. It appears from the totality of facts of the case that there is claim of Laxman and respondent no.4 Saka Ram over Sita and there appears to be some dispute about children. 7. We have perused the statement recorded by Investigating Officer of Laxman, Sita, Santosh, Sangeeta and Dinesh. We also interrogated Laxman and Sita in Court. 8. It appears from the totality of facts of the case that there is claim of Laxman and respondent no.4 Saka Ram over Sita and there appears to be some dispute about children. Both Laxman and Sita stated that they were kidnapped by some unknown person and specifically stated that they were not knowing anybody. They further stated that they were kidnapped in front of their house. They admitted that they are living in a locality having about 250 houses and none of the neighbour came to save them. It is further stated that there were 18-20 persons who came to take them from their house. Smt. Sita stated that it took about 1 hour time to take them away. Both Laxman and Sita stated that they were kept in a forest nearby where they lived for two days and were always surrounded by 15-20 persons. They were given food which was brought from nearby locality which was 1km away from the place of hiding. 9. Looking to the topography of the place where the corpus Laxman, Sita and children were kept, as per the statement of Laxman and Sita and after going through the statement recorded by Investigating Officer, we are not inclined to believe the narration given by Laxman and Sita in any manner. Further, they could not explain as to how the petitioner could know about all these facts so as to file this Habeas Corpus petition. They also failed to disclose the reason why the members of locality did not intervene. In the Court, Smt. Sita stated involvement of respondent no.4 but Laxman stated that he was not knowing anybody who came to take them away. We need not narrate more and more about the inconsistencies and contradictions in their statement as well as facts which make the statement of these witnesses highly improbable. However, both Laxman and Sita admitted that they have been released by the so called kidnappers a day or two before the police contacted them and stated that they are living at their own residence and had no apprehension. 10. The present Habeas corpus petition had initially no merit and from the subsequent events also, it is clear that the cause does not survive. 10. The present Habeas corpus petition had initially no merit and from the subsequent events also, it is clear that the cause does not survive. The Habeas corpus petition is accordingly dismissed.Habeas Corpus Petition Dismissed. *******