Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 788 (KAR)

Santosh Kumar v. State

2014-09-05

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA, K.L.MANJUNATH

body2014
JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. The petition is filed by the petitioner to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents-Commissioner of Police, Infantry Road and Inspector of Police, JP Nagar Police Station to produce his wife, Lokeshwari B.S. to enable him to take her to the matrimonial home. 2. According to the petition averments, the petitioner is a registered money lender. In the year 2007, he came in contact with Lokeshwari later turned into love and they agreed to marry each other and accordingly married on 14.1.2008 under Section 13 of Special Marriage Act, 1954 which was registered before the Marriage Officer, Jayanagar, Bangalore. It is his further case that his father-in-law is a business man and his wife belongs to Lingayat Caste. Their marriage was not intimated to her parents. Therefore, she is residing with her parents at No. 668, 45th Cross, 8th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560082 and now they have changed the residence to No. 1709, 8th Cross, 17th A Main Road, 2nd Phase, Bangalore- 560078. 3. It is contended that the wife of the petitioner is afraid to inform her parents regarding their marriage for the reason that her father may do away with her life and also the petitioner. According to him, a representation dated 20.8.2014 vide Annexure-C was given to the jurisdictional Police seeking protection and the same was refused by the Police. Later, his father-in-law having learnt the register marriage between his daughter and the petitioner has restrained his wife from going out of his house. Therefore, the present petition is filed. 4. Learned Government Advocate submits that the entire case pleaded by the petitioner is not fully correct. According to him, the marriage solemnized between his wife was not intimated to the father of Lokeshwari or to her family members. Father of Lokeshwari has lodged a complaint before the Police in Crime No. 620/2014 stating that his daughter is missing from yesterday morning i.e., 4.9.2014 and the same is registered in Crime No. 620/2014 on 4.9.2014 and he further submits that the petitioner and his wife have together are present this Court and that the wife of the petitioner is not under illegal detention of her father and therefore, he requests for dismissal of the petition. 5. The petitioner and his wife are present. 5. The petitioner and his wife are present. On interrogation, it is submitted that they have not intimated the marriage to the father-in-law of the petitioner. Though their marriage was celebrated on 14.1.2008, they have not been living together and his wife is living with her parents on her own without intimating the factum of marriage to her parents. It is submitted that they have come together to the Court and at no point of time, she has been under illegal detention of her father. When the wife of the petitioner is living with her parents without disclosing her marriage to her parents and when the petitioner and his wife have come to the Court together and in view of the representation given by the petitioner on 20.8.2014, it only discloses that the process of Court is abused by the petitioner by filing Habeas Corpus alleging that his wife is under illegal detention of her father and police are not willing to trace her and release her from wrongful detention of her father. 6. According to us, the petition is ingeniously filed with an ulterior motive to abuse process of Habeas Corpus. The process of this Court cannot be misused by unscrupulous persons. When the petitioner and his wife have not disclosed the fact of their marriage to his parents-in-law and that his wife is residing with her parents on her own, the question of considering that his wife is under illegal detention of her father does not arise. Habeas Corpus would have been maintainable if his wife was under unlawful detention. 7. If the petitioner's wife is afraid of informing about her marriage to her parents and family members, they cannot misuse the process of law. When they are major and married, it is for them to live together. On the contrary without disclosing the marriage, since yesterday, the wife of the petitioner has left her parents' house. The parents being afraid of their daughter missing, her father has lodged a complaint which shows the mental torture and agony caused to her parents. Therefore, we are of the view that purposefully the petitioner has misused the process of this Court by filing Habeas Corpus. If really the petitioner and his wife were afraid of the father of Lokeshwari, they were entitled to seek police protection by approaching the Police. Therefore, we are of the view that purposefully the petitioner has misused the process of this Court by filing Habeas Corpus. If really the petitioner and his wife were afraid of the father of Lokeshwari, they were entitled to seek police protection by approaching the Police. If the police failed to give protection, it is for them to approach the competent Court. The petitioner being a MBA graduate and money lender well versed with the law, has approached this Court with an ulterior motive. We do not appreciate the conduct of the advocate for the petitioner to file a Habeas Corpus. Accordingly, petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-, which amount shall be deposited by the petitioner within two weeks from today before the Registry, failing which, the amount shall be recovered by the registry in accordance with law.