Judgment :- (M. Chockalingam, J.) 1. This is the second attempt made by the petitioner herein one Mr.Jeelan alleging that he was the student of Sacret Heart College, Tirupathur, Vellore District; that he fell in love with one Divya, the daughter of the fourth respondent herein; that following the same, the marriage was solemnized on 16.7.2010, as per the Muslim Rites and Customs; that thereafter, they were living as husband and wife; that the fourth respondent, her father, gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Thirupathur Police Station, the third respondent herein; that a case for girl missing was registered; that at the time of investigation, the fourth respondent came to know about the marriage and opposed the same; that the reason for the same was that they belonged to different religions; that the fourth respondent with the help of the third respondent police came to the house of the petitioner and harassed his mother and sister and thereafter, his wife was taken; that on coming to know about the same, he lodged a complaint before the respondents 2 and 3 that she was illegally detained by the father; that he filed HCP No.1434/2010 before this Court, and the same was also dismissed; that subsequently, Divya, the wife of the petitioner, came out of the clutches of the fourth respondent, went to the police station and informed that she was ready and willing to live with the petitioner herein; but, on the contrary, she was again sent back to the fourth respondent, and under the circumstances, it became necessary to file this petition before this Court. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. On scrutiny of the materials available and hearing the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered opinion that not only dismissal of the petition would suffice, but also it is a fit case where cost has got to be awarded. 4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has already filed HCP No.1434/2010 the order of which is also placed in the hands of this Court. 4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has already filed HCP No.1434/2010 the order of which is also placed in the hands of this Court. The said petition was filed by him with the averments that there was a marriage between himself and the daughter of the fourth respondent by name Divya on 16.7.2010; and that she was actually in the illegal custody of the fourth respondent father. At the time when the earlier petition was taken up by this Court for consideration, it was represented by the State that the father of the detenue, the fourth respondent herein, gave a complaint to the police, and a case was registered for girl missing in Crime No.891/2010 on the file of the third respondent police, and during investigation, she was secured and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, and she gave a statement stating that she went to Chennai for excursion and project work with the friends and returned on 13.7.2010, and she is with the parents, and the Investigation Officer produced the alleged detenue before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thirupathur, and also filed a final report on 20.7.2010 itself, referring the case as mistake of fact. Thus from the very order, it would be quite evident that on the complaint of the father, a case was registered, and she was secured and produced before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, and her statement was also recorded from which it would be quite clear that she went to Madras and came back and is with her parents safely. On perusal of the file, this Court on the earlier occasion thought that it was a case where there was no illegal detention as alleged in the petition and dismissed the same. In such circumstances, this is the second attempt which, in the considered opinion of the Court, is vexatious on the very same allegations. 5. The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the marriage register was not available at that time, and now it is also produced before this Court. Now, the very same allegations are made claiming that Divya is his wife pursuant to the marriage that has taken place on 16.7.2010. But the statement given by her before the Judicial Magistrate on production, was quite contrary. Now, the very same allegations are made claiming that Divya is his wife pursuant to the marriage that has taken place on 16.7.2010. But the statement given by her before the Judicial Magistrate on production, was quite contrary. Apart from that, she has also given a letter dated 20.7.2010, to the Inspector of Police, the third respondent herein, in her own handwriting, and it is also perused by the Court. Under the circumstances, this petition itself is vexatious, and the earlier order will hold good. Even then, the petitioner has come forward with the second attempt. It is nothing but wasting the precious time of the Court. That part, the petitioner should have got satisfied with the earlier order. But, he is pursuing his attempt. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that dismissal of the petition along with cost alone would suffice. Therefore, Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is awarded towards cost payable by the petitioner to the Legal Aid, High Court, Madras, within a period of two weeks herefrom. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of.