JUDGMENT :- By this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "(1) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction directing the respondents authorities to produce all the records in respect of the arrest and detention of the petitioner's husband on 9-8-2007 and the continued detention of the petitioners husband under various offences registered in various police stations, stated above. (2) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction, for appointing an independent agency such as C.B.I., for investigating the allegations stated in the petition and in respect of the crimes concerned. (3) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction for appointing an appropriate Enquiry Officer to enquire into the acts and omissions of the respondent no.5 while dealing with the arrest and detention of the petitioner's husband. (4) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction interim, restraining the respondents police officials from seeking continued detention of the petitioner's husband under any offence without giving adequate notice of 72 hours prior to the arrest of the petitioner's husband. (5) Grant any other relief deemed fit." 2. The petitioner is the wife of Vrishabh Pannalal Munot, ajeweler at Wardha. According to the petitioner, her husband Vrishabh is suffering from heart ailment and also complicated diabetes. The petitioner claims that her husband Vrishabh was picked up from Sarafa Bazar, Wardha on 9-8-2007 by the officers of Crime Branch, Mumbai without preparing memo of arrest and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jawhar, District Thane on 13-8-2007 and his police custody was sought. It is further the case of the petitioner that her husband Vrishabh has been falsely implicated in different crimes registered at different Police Stations and has been illegally remanded to police custody tram time to time. It is further the case of the petitioner that although Vrishabh was granted bail on 27-8-2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Palgarh, an application was moved for his transfer to Shahapur Police Station which was rejected. Vrishabh was again arrested in Crime No.78/2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 412 and 413 of the Indian Penal Code and was remanded to police custody till 18-9-2007. According to the petitioner, her husband has been falsely implicated in different crimes although he is innocent and is not involved in any offence. The petitioner has, therefore, sought above reliefs by filing the present petition. 3. According to the petitioner, her husband has been falsely implicated in different crimes although he is innocent and is not involved in any offence. The petitioner has, therefore, sought above reliefs by filing the present petition. 3. The petitioner was called upon to satisfy this Court about the locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition. We have heard extensively Dr. Anjan De, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. A. Mirza, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents on the aspect of locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the present petition. 4. Dr. De, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's husband has been falsely implicated and the respondents have acted illegally and arbitrarily in detaining her husband and since life and liberty of the petitioner's husband is involved, petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition. In support of his submissions, Dr. De relied upon the following authorities: (1) Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & ors. ( AIR 1966 SC 828 ). (2) Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha Vs. M/s. S. Lal & Co. ( AIR 1973 SC 2720 ). (3) Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. M.V. Dabholkar ( AIR 1975 SC 2092 ). (4) S. P. Gupta & ors. Vs. President of India & ors. ( AIR 1982 SC 149 ). (5) D. K. Basu Vs, State of West Bengal ( AIR 1997 SC 610 ). 5. Per contra, Mr. Mirza, learned APP for respondents submitted that the petition as filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in as much as the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition and seek reliefs claimed in the petition. According to Mr. Mirza, in the event Vrishabh, the husband of petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents, he can seek appropriate relief, but the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs since she has no locus standi to file the present petition. According to Mr. Mirza, Vrishabh does not suffer from any legal disability and in the absence of any such legal disability, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition and she cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. In support of his submissions, Mr. According to Mr. Mirza, Vrishabh does not suffer from any legal disability and in the absence of any such legal disability, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition and she cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mirza relied upon the following authorities: (1) Karamjeet Singh Vs, Union of India, (1992)4 SCC 666 , (2) Ashok Knmar Pandey Vs, State of W.B., (2004)3 SCC 349 . 6. We shall now deal with the judgments relied upon by Dr. Anjan De, learned counsel for petitioner. In Godde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra), the Apex Court has held that the petitioner who seeks to file an application under Article 226 of the Constitution should "ordinarily" be one who has a personal or individual right in the subject-matter of the petition. However, in exceptional cases, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority can file a writ even though he has no proprietary or even fiduciary interest in the subject-matter thereof. In Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha Vs. M/s. S. Lal & Company (supra), the Apex Court has held that ordinarily personal or individual right of the petitioner is the foundation for exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified. The Apex Court further held that in case the petition is filed by a stranger, the Court will intervene in case it considers that the public interest demands its intervention. In M. V. Dabholkar's case (supra), issue before the Apex Court was, whether the Bar Council of a State is "person aggrieved" to maintain an appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act. In S. P. Gupta & ors. Vs. President of India & ors. (supra), the issue before the Apex Court, inter-alia, whether the lawyers had locus standi to file writ petitions by way of public interest litigation challenging the matter of transfer of High Court Judges. In D, K. Basu's case (supra), the Apex Court laid down various guidelines which are to be followed by the police in case of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf. 7. We shall now consider the authorities relied upon by Mr. In D, K. Basu's case (supra), the Apex Court laid down various guidelines which are to be followed by the police in case of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf. 7. We shall now consider the authorities relied upon by Mr. T. A. Mirza, learned APP. In Karamjeet Singh Vs. Union of India (supra), the Apex Court refused to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution at the instance of the petitioner challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon Sukhdev and Harjinder Singh on the ground that the petition filed by the petitioner as next friend holding that the "person aggrieved" was under a legal disability was not maintainable since the convicts were not under legal disability and mere obsession based on religious belief or any other personal philosophy could not be treated as legal disability. In the said judgment, the Apex Court referred to the observations of the Apex Court in Janata Dal Vs. H. S. Chowdhary reported in (1991)3 SCC 756 to the following effect: "Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons. it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants." In Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B. (supra), after referring to several judgments, the Apex Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking commutation of death sentence imposed on Dhananjay Chatterjee to life sentence on the ground that the aggrieved party was not under disability recognised by law. 8. Upon perusal of the judgments relied upon by Dr. Anjan De on behalf of the petitioner, it is clear that in none of those judgments, the facts were similar to the facts in the present case. No doubt, in some of the Judgments relied upon by Dr. De, the Apex Court has diluted the concept of locus in the petitions filed in public interest. In the present case, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that petition is by way of public interest litigation. No doubt, in some of the Judgments relied upon by Dr. De, the Apex Court has diluted the concept of locus in the petitions filed in public interest. In the present case, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be said that petition is by way of public interest litigation. On the contrary, the petitioner claims that her husband has been illegally detained and falsely implicated in different crimes. The petitioner has not placed any material on record regarding legal disability of her husband Vrishabh. This being the position, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment relied upon by Mr. Mirza are squarely applicable in the present case. In the present case the observations made by the Apex Court in Janatal Dal’s case (supra) quoted above are squarely attracted. If Vrishabh has been illegally detained contrary to the directions given by the Apex Court in D. K. Basu's case (supra) and he has been falsely implicated in different criminal cases. it is only he who can challenge the action of the concerned authorities by filing appropriate proceedings. 9. In our considered opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi to file present petition and seek reliefs claimed therein. The petition as filed is not maintainable and as such is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.