Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Syed Ghouse Saleem vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 May, 2020
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9503 OF 2020
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar) Proceeding was taken up through video conferencing Heard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader, attached to the office of learned Advocate General.
2. The petitioner, claiming to be the father-in-law of one M. Koushika, whose name was subsequently changed as Shayra, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court with a plea to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus for producing the corpus of his daughter-in-law namely M. Koushika @ Shayra.
3. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since 17.05.2020, his daughter-in-law is in illegal custody of private respondents i.e. respondent Nos.9 to 11, who are mother and maternal uncles respectively of daughter-in-law of the petitioner. In the Writ Petition, many facts have been incorporated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second son of the petitioner, namely Sri Syed Azeem got married with M. Koushika @ Shayra on 21.12.2019. However, at the time of registration of marriage vide certificate, dated 21.12.2019, issued by Chief Qazi, Government Qazaath Qila Mohammad Nagar, Hyderabad, the name of the petitioner's daughter-in- law has been mentioned as Shayra and in the said certificate, her previous name has also been mentioned as Mummadi Koushika. In the Writ Petition, it has also been indicated that the petitioner is General Secretary of Madeena Masjid. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the petitioner's second son namely Syed Azeem and his daughter-in-law namely M. Koushika @ Shayra have filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.663 of 2020 in which allegation was made against Government Officials in respect of their interference with the conjugal right of the petitioner's second son and daughter-in-law. In the said case, a Single Bench of this Court had directed for posting the matter on 26.03.2020 and opined presence of both the petitioners before the Court. Thereafter another Writ Petition was filed by the wife of the petitioner herein namely Smt. Y.M. Akthar Khatun, who is said to be mother-in-law of M. Koushika @ Shayra. In the said Writ Petition, mainly a prayer was made for directing official respondent Nos.2 to 5 for initiating action against respondent Nos.6 to 11. Among respondent Nos.6 to 11, respondent Nos.9 and 11 of the present Writ Petition were arrayed as respondent Nos.6 and 10 in W.P.No.6266 of 2020. In the said Writ Petition, a Single Bench of this Court directed to list the same along with W.P.No.663 of 2020. On going through order, dated 17.03.2020, in W.P.No.6266 of 2020, it is evident that learned Single Judge has noticed the submission of learned Government Pleader that before Mandal Executive Magistrate, the daughter- in-law of the petitioner had raised certain allegations against her husband, who is the second son of the petitioner. It has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the writ petitions are still pending. However, the present Writ Petition has been filed with a new plea that the petitioner's daughter-in-law is in illegal custody of private respondents.
4. Without dwelling into the merits of the case, when it is very much evident that there is family dispute in between the parties, moreover if it was a case of illegal detention of M. Koushika @ Shayra, her husband was the best person to approach the Court for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner, who claims to be the father-in-law of M. Koushika @ Shayra, has filed the present Writ Petition. In normal course, if such fact discloses family dispute, certainly Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be entertained. Moreover, in the present case, it is not the husband, but father-in-law of M. Koushika @ Shayra, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly we do not find any reason to entertain the present Writ Petition that too considering the fact that two Writ Petitions filed earlier, are already pending, first petition jointly filed by the second son and daughter-in- law of the petitioner and the second petition filed by the wife of the petitioner, there is no reason to entertain the present Writ Petition.
5. After the order was dictated learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second son of the petitioner, who is husband of M. Koushika @ Shayra, is behind bar and this is the reason that this Writ Petition was filed by father-in-law of the alleged detenue.
6. Considering the fact that on earlier occasion, two Writ Petitions were filed as well as the fact in the present Writ Petition the dispute pertaining to family dispute has been raised, certainly filing of such Writ Petition can be termed as abuse of process of the Court and once the Court is satisfied that a party has abused the process of Court, in such a situation, while dismissing the Writ Petition, it is also required to impose a cost.
7. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- on the petitioner.
The awarded cost may be deposited in the account of Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR _________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY 29th May, 2020 IKN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9503 of 2020 (Order of the Bench dictated by the Honourable Sri Justice Rakesh Kumar) 29.05.2020 IKN