Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Revu Durga Prasad vs Director General Of Police And Ors. on 22 September, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(6)ALD196, 1998(6)ALT29, 1999CRILJ778
Author: Y.V. Narayana
Bench: Y.V. Narayana
ORDER Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. Petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce his wife Smt. Potharaju Venkata Lakshmi Sudha, daughter of P. Sutyanarayana Murthy fourth respondent and release her from unlawful and unjustified detention against her will and a further direction is also sought to Potharaju Venkata lakshmi Sudha to join the society of the petitioner for leading conjugal life.
2. According to the petitioner, when he was studying MBA Course at the Indian Institute of Advanced Management at Visakhapatnam during the year 1993-95, he developed intimacy with P. V. Lakshmi Sudha who is the daughter of the fourth respondent and both of them decided to marry against the wishes of the parents. With the support of friends and well-wishers, he married P.V. Lakshmi Sudha, daughter of the fourth respondent oil 30-10-1996 in Lakshminarasimha Swami Temple, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District and their marriage has also been registered in the office of the Registrar (Marriages) Bheemunipatnam on 30-10-1996 and a certificate to that effect has also been obtained from the said office on the same day.
3. Petitioner alleges that his marriage with P. V. Lakshmi Sudha daughter of fourth respondent was not to the liking of the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent with the active connivance of the men Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam and with the active advice of the fifth respondent who is a practising advocate in Visakhapatnam Courts, hatched a conspiracy to break the marriage of the petitioner with said P. V. Lakshmi Sitdha who is his daughter and adopted various methods in this direction. According to the petitioner, a false case is foisted against him and his family members in FIR No.258 of 96 on 26-12-1996 under Sections 498-A, 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(i) of Dowry Prohibition Act by the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent foisted this false case as if his wife P. V. Lakshmi Sudha filed the complaint. Police personnel working in the offices of second and third respondents, in the guise of making investigations on the complaint so made, have created so much problems to the petitioner and his family members even though some of the family members of the petitioner are staying away and are not connected with the case. Apart from lodging the complaint, petitioner alleges that his wife P. V. Lakshmi Sudha, on the advice of his father and fifth respondent, had also filed a case in OP No.408 of 1996 under Section 12(1) (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Visakhapatnam praying for annulment of the marriage between the parties on the ground that the said marriage is performed by fraud and force. After elaborate enquiry', the Family Court dismissed the said OP by an order dated 23-6-1998 by holding that the marriage of the petitioner with said P.V. Lakshmi Sudha is performed with her consent.
4. In the background of the dismissal of the OP No.408 of 96 filed by his daughter, the fourth respondent has desperately tried to create more problems to the petitioner and in that process exerted lot of pressure on the wife of the petitioner to keep herself away from the society of the petitioner. When the fourth respondent failed in his attempts, he suddenly developed love and affection towards the petitioner and met him and intimated him that he has now reconciled to the reality of his daughter being married to the petitioner. Believing the fourth respondent, petitioner has agreed to send his wife to the house of the fourth respondent as desired by him. After sending his wife to the house of the fourth respondent, petitioner has also made two or three visits to the residence of his father-in-law. When petitioner went to the house of the fourth respondent, on 24-6-1998 around 8.30 a.m., he did not find his wife in the said house. When he made enquiries with the fourth respondent the fourth respondent evaded an answer. Petitioner than having realised the game plan of the fourth respondent, has desperately tried to find the whereabouts of his wife, but in vain. On his further enquiries, petitioner came to know that his wife has been illegally detained by the fourth and fifth respondents with the active support of second and third respondents. According to the petitioner, his wife while she was in illegal detention of her father, has telephoned to him and requested him to get her freed. On the basis of the telephonic message, as he has no other go than to approach this Court, petitioner filed tliis writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief as indicated supra.
5. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, at the first instance, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 learned Additional Advocate-General took time for filing counter. When the matter was listed on 31-8-1998, on behalf of the fourth respondent one Raghavacharyulu, Counsel sought time for filing vakalat and counter. On behalf of the fifth respondent, Sri P. Raghuram Counsel filed a counter along with his vakalat. The matter was, however, adjourned to 22-9-1998 for filing necessary counters and additional counters on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.
6. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, on behalf of the petitioner Sri N. V. Ranganathan learned senior Counsel along with Sri M.A. Ali Counsel have appeared. On behalf of the fourth respondent, Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned senior Counsel along with Sri Raghavacharyulu, Counsel on record, have appeared. On behalf of the fifth respondent, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel along with Sri P. Raghuram have appeared.
7. During the course of hearing Sri N.V. Ranganathan, learned senior Counsel representing the petitioner primarily contended that as the OP No.408 of 96 filed by the wife of the petitioner for annulment of her marriage with the petitioner has been dismissed, the petitioner is entitled to have the society of his wife P.V. Lakshmi Sudha. Learned senior Counsel submitted that the respondents have devised a wicked scheme in order to demolish the marital life of the petitioner and his wife, by filing false case against the petitioner and his family members in FIR No.258 of 96. Learned senior Counsel has strenuously contended that the fourth respondent who is the father of Potharaju Venkata Lakshmi Sudha has not filed a counter though the petitioner has levelled various allegations against him and therefore, pleaded before us that the fourth respondent be directed to file his counter. Alleging that fourth and fifth respondents have detained the wife of the petitioner illegally with the connivance of respondents 1 to 3 learned senior Counsel sought a direction from this Court to procure the presence of Potharajit Venkata Lakshmi Sudha and permit the petitioner to have her company.
8. Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent has submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner are false and frivolous inasmuch as P.V. Lakshmi Sudha is aged about 26 years and has gainfully secured employment abroad and is leading an independent life. Learned senior Counsel contended that there is no truth in the allegation that said P. V. Lakshmi Sudha has been illegally detained by the fourth respondent on the advice of the fifth respondent. It is further contended that the petitioner is bent upon creating problems to P. V. Lakshmi Sudha as she has realised that she would not be safe in the company of the petitioner and decided to stay independently. Learned senior Counsel further submitted that in this view of the matter, the fourth respondent's counter is not necessary. Learned senior Counsel has also placed before us a solemnised affidavit of P.V. Lakshmi Sudha which is duly notarised by competent Notary. Counsel submits that P.V. Lakshmi Sudha has affirmed in the said affidavit that she has settled abroad independently and has secured a gainful employment and leading a happy life. It is also clearly indicated in the said affidavit that she has not been illegally detained by the fourth respondent or for that matter by anybody else, and she apprehends danger from the petitioner. Counsel therefore submits that as the petitioner has become a threat to her life, said Laxmi Sudha is not inclined to join the society of the petitioner and as such, the allegations made by the petitioner are far from truth and prayed for dismissal of this writ petition.
9. On behalf of the fifth respondent, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel has pleaded before us that the fifth respondent being an advocate has suffered a blow to his reputation on account of the mud-slinging activity of the petitioner which was caused a severe set-back to the status and reputation of the fifth respondent. Counsel, therefore, pleaded that the fifth respondent be permitted to take appropriate steps against the petitioner in an appropriate legal forum.
10. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3 two counters have been filed. A counter was filed on 24-8-98 by the third respondent and an additional counter is also filed by him today before us. In the counters, it is stated that P. V. Lakshmi Sudha had lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his relatives basing on which an FIR in Crime No.258 of 96 is registered under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC and under Section 3(1) (i) of Dowry Prohibition Act in IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam and necessary investigation was also conducted. It is indicated in the counters that when police personnel visited the house of the fourth respondent after filing of this writ petition, on being informed by the office of the learned Advocate-General, they found the house of the fourth respondent was locked and on enquiry, it was revealed to them that the fourth respondent along with his daughter Laxmi Sudha had gone on a piligrimage.
11. In the wake of the above divergent contentions, the moot point that arises for consideration is whether a Writ of Habeas Corpus could be issued to the respondents to procure the presence of P. V. Lakshmi Sudha before this Court?
12. As has been seen by us from the notarised affidavit filed by Potharajtt Venkata Lakshmi Sudha which has been placed before us by Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned senior Counsel appearing on belialf of the fourth respondent, said P.V. Lakshmi Sudha has affirmed on oath that she has secured gainful employment in the United States of America and is living independently. It is seen that she is aged about 26 years. She has also expressed in the affidavit threat to her life from the petitioner and pleaded that the contents of the said affidavit shall not be disclosed to the petitioner. She further stated that no one including the fourth respondent has illegally detained her and she is living independently. Though Sri N. V. Ranganathan, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has requested this Court to furnish a copy of the said affidavit to him and the fourth respondent could be directed to file his counter, having regard to the contents in the notarised affidavit of P.V. Lakshmi Sudha, we are not inclined to accede to the request of the learned senior Counsel. When said P.V. Lakshmi Sudha herself has filed a notarised affidavit through the learned senior Counsel stating, inter alia, that she has not been detained illegally by anybody and she is living independently by securing gainful employment in USA and apprehending danger from the petitioner, we do not think that a counter is necessary from the fourth respondent.
13. Insofar as the contention of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to have the Company of his wife P. V. Lakshmi Sudha as the OP No.408 of 1996 filed by her to declare her marriage with the petitioner as a nullity has been dismissed, we are not inclined to accept this contention. Sri M.R.K. Chowdary, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent has submitted that as against the dismissal of the said OP by the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, Lakshmi Sudha has filed an appeal in this Court which is pending adjudication. Therefore, the petitioner's plea in this regard cannot be accepted as such a relief is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.
14. Insofar as the plea of Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent that the fifth respondent be permitted to proceed against the petitioner according to law for tarnishing his reputation, we make it clear that it shall always be open to the fifth respondent to take recourse to such procedure according to law against the petitioner, if law permits him.
15. A writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus is issued if the Courts are satisfied that the detenu is in the illegal custody of either the State or of any individuals, for production of the detenu before the Court-Having regard to the allegations made in the petition and counter-affidavits and the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also on a perusal of the notarised affidavit of P. V. Lakshmi Sudha, we are convinced that she has not been illegally detained by anybody including the fourth respondent and she is leading an independent life. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus as prayed for.
16. We see no merits in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.