Judgment M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. Invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner, namely, Priya, has filed this petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, for production of her husband, namely, Saravanan, aged about 31 years. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenu took place on 07.09.2007 and they have been living together; that he was impotent and even despite the same, she is living with him; that in the year 2008, there was a huge demand for dowry; that the alleged detenu, the husband, and also respondents 3 to 6, namely, the parents-R3 and R4 and the sister and her husband-R6 and R5, were demanding Rs.one lakh and thereafter, asked for about 15 sovereigns of jewels; even then after tolerating the same, she is living with him; that while the matter stood thus, on 110. 2009, the petitioners husband went to Mysore after informing her; but he did not return; that subsequently, the petitioner came to know that respondents 3 to 6 herein had forcibly taken him and kept him under illegal custody; that under such circumstances, she gave a complaint before the respondents police on 111. 2009; but they have not taken any steps; that under such circumstances, she found no option than to file the habeas corpus petition before this Court. 3. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2. 4. After going through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case where the request of the petitioner could be considered. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenu has taken place on 07.09.2007 and they have been living together and there was a demand for dowry of Rs.one lakh and also the jewels. The petitioner has candidly admitted that no complaint was given in that regard; but at the same time, the petitioner has come forward to state that though her husband after informing her to go to Mysore on 110. 2009, he did not return. Under such circumstances, this petition has been filed. 5. The petitioner has candidly admitted that no complaint was given in that regard; but at the same time, the petitioner has come forward to state that though her husband after informing her to go to Mysore on 110. 2009, he did not return. Under such circumstances, this petition has been filed. 5. It is pertinent to point out that the averments made in para 3 are not only against the parents of the detenu but also against the detenu. It will be quite clear that it is highly doubtful, whether the allegations are true since in so far as these allegations no complaint was given though the allegations made were pertaining to the year 2008. Now at this juncture, it could be very well seen that while the petitioner has admitted that they were all living jointly, no question of any forcible taking or keeping him under illegal custody by the parents of the detenu, would arise. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case, where the petitioner could be given the relief sought for and if aggrieved, she can approach the Civil Court for necessary relief. Accordingly, the petition deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.