K. Sivaiah v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI WP NO. 22415 of 2015 Date of Order: 13.6.2017 Between:

K Sivaiah

...Petitioner

And The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ..Respondents Counsel for petitioner :

Mr. S. Prashanth for Mrs. S. Nanda Counsel for respondents :

AGP for Home (AP) The Court made the following:-

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI WP NO. 22415 of 2015 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) The petitioner, whose wife allegedly went with respondent No.4 on her own volition in the month of March, 2014, filed this writ petition for issue of writ of habeas corpus by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to produce his wife (for short "the alleged detenue") and set her at liberty.

A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.3Inspector of Police, IV Town, Kurnool wherein he has enumerated various steps taken by the police to trace respondent No.4 and the alleged detenue. It is averred that their investigation revealed that the brother of respondent No.4 also gave a complaint to Police, Chandanagar on 7.3.2014 about missing of the latter, based on which a case in Cr.No. 119 of 2014 was registered and the same seems to be under investigation. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the alleged detenue has the history of leaving the petitioner by going along with respondent No.4 and that on earlier two occasions she was brought back. It is further stated that on the immediate previous occasion i.e., on 23.11.2013 the alleged detenue along with her daughter by name Priyanka left the petitioner and that on the report lodged by the petitioner, a case in Cr.No. 409 of 2013 under the head "Woman and Girl Missing" was registered by Kurnool IV Town Police Station. It is further averred that the alleged detenue and her

daughter were traced at the residence of respondent No.4 at Dornala village of Prakasam district on 11.12.2013 and at the time of handing over the alleged detenue along with missing girl to the petitioner, respondent No.4 and the alleged detenue gave an undertaking that they will not repeat their conduct in future. That the alleged detenue has once again left the house of the petitioner without his knowledge and that it is suspected that she is living with respondent No.4 at an undisclosed place. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that all the required measures so far taken to trace the alleged detenue and respondent No.4 did not pay off.

From the contents of the counter-affidavit, referred to above, it is evident that this is not a case of kidnapping or abduction of the alleged detenue by respondent No.4. Evidently the alleged detenue on her own volition left her husband and joined the company of respondent No.4 and the efforts made by the police to trace both of them have not paid dividends so far. The facts of this case therefore do not warrant issue of writ of habeas corpus as prayed for in this writ petition.

For the aforestated reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Dt. 13.6.2017 KR ____________________ JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI