Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, one Nivetha Gopalan has brought forth this petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to direct the respondents to produce her husband Dr.S.Gopalan. 2. On notice, the fourth respondent has appeared before this Court. He has filed his counter. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the marriage took place on 7.5.2009; that he was in foreign country; that he came down to India; that after making arrival at the airport at Bangalore, he came to Madras; that he was actually not found at present; that she also apprehends that he has been in the illegal custody of the fourth respondent, and hence a complaint was given on 22.2.2010; that the second complaint was also given on 27.2.2010; but no steps have yet been taken, and hence she was forced to apply to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. 4. The fourth respondent, a practising Advocate has appeared before the Court and filed a counter. 5. The crux of the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent is that it is true that there was a marriage between them; that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law; that his son who married her was actually employed in a foreign country; that now the proceedings have been initiated by his son in the Family Court, Chennai, for divorce, and it is also pending; and that the petitioner herein having appeared before that Court has now come forward with this petition with all false allegation invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Now, at this juncture, when the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a representation to withdraw the petition, the fourth respondent made all the above submissions. 7. The Court after hearing the submissions made is of the considered opinion that the petition is vexatious. After knowing the fact that he is employed in foreign country, and he has also taken proceedings for divorce, and she has also appeared before the Family Court, she has now brought this petition before this Court. All would clearly indicate that it has been wantonly and deliberately done, and it is an abuse of process of Court. This Court cannot tolerate such things to happen, and it is a fit case where interest of justice would be met if cost is awarded. All would clearly indicate that it has been wantonly and deliberately done, and it is an abuse of process of Court. This Court cannot tolerate such things to happen, and it is a fit case where interest of justice would be met if cost is awarded. Hence the petitioner is directed to make a payment of cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees thousand only) to the Legal Aid, Madras, attached to the High Court. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is disposed of.