Judgment M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. Invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner, namely, Jayanthi, has filed this petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of her husband, namely, Swaminathan, aged about 40 years. 2. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the petition and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Swaminathan, aged about 40 years, was originally working in Oxford College of Business Management at Bangalore as Librarian and thereafter, they came back to Tamil Nadu; that on 09.09.2009 he left home for joining duty at Sri Sathya Sai Medical College and Research Institute at Tiruporur; but he did not join so; that he was found missing from 09.09.2009 onwards and she gave a complaint to the 4th respondent police on 13.09.2009; that a case came to be registered in Crime No.251 of 2009 for man missing; but he has not been secured; that under such circumstances, she has forced to file this petition. 3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. According to him, when a complaint was given on 13.09.2009 alleging that her husband was missing from 09.09.2009, a case came to be registered and the investigation is on; that pending investigation, it is found that the petitioners husband has sent amounts, namely, Rs.2,000/-from Tirupathy and Rs.5,000/- from Chittoor, through banking transaction to the petitioner and it is subsequently verified that the counterfoil contained the signature of the husband of the petitioner and it has to be further investigated. 4. After hearing both sides, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner was missing and a complaint was given and the investigation is on; but at the same time, the intervening circumstances are, he sent amounts from Tirupathy and Chittoor and the same have been received by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, it is easily inferable that he is searching for a better job and he has got conscious of the fact that the wife and his daughter have got to be maintained and hence, he sent amounts to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, it is easily inferable that he is searching for a better job and he has got conscious of the fact that the wife and his daughter have got to be maintained and hence, he sent amounts to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that instead of keeping the matter pending, it would suffice to direct the 4th respondent to take steps, further investigate the matter properly in order to secure and produce him before the Court, within a reasonable time. With the above observation and direction, the habeas corpus petition is disposed of.