S.M. Subramaniam, J.

The relief sought for in this Habeas Corpus Petition is for a direction to direct the respondent to produce the body of the petitioner's husband, Palanisamy, aged about 40 years and set him at liberty.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner married one Mr. Palanisamy, son of Paramasivam on 04.03.2004 and commenced her matrimonial life. When the petitioner was in her parents house, the detenu went missing. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that there was certain differences between the petitioner and her husband. However, the detenu Mr. Palanisamy not returned back to home. The petitioner contacted the friends and relatives and all her efforts went in vain. Thus, the petitioner was constrained to file a complaint before the respondent police.

3. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.1070 of 2017 under Section “Man Missing” on 13.12.2017. The process of investigation was commenced by the Inspector of Police and about 12 witnesses were examined by the Inspector of Police. Apart from the petitioner, the wife of the detenu, mother, grandfather, relatives, neighbors, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband of the sister-in-law were examined by the police. The respondent police has sent pamphlets containing the details of the detenu along with his photographs to the District Crime Record Bureau, Namakkal and the same was sent to all other Police Stations in and around Namakkal District and also to neighboring Districts at Salem, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri, etc. The said pamphlets were pasted at the public gathering places viz., Railway Station, Bus Stand, Auto Stand, Mechanic Shops, Market, Hospital, Temple etc. Inspite of all the efforts taken by the respondent police, they are unable to secure any clue with regard to the whereabouts of the detenu. A special team was constituted, which in turn visited various places in and around Namakkal and neighboring Districts. Inspite of all that, the police is unable to secure the body of the detenu.

4. We are of the opinion that the preliminary issue in respect of the maintainability of the present Habeas Corpus Petition is to be considered in view of the fact that there is no positive allegations or illegal detention of the detenu established in this petition. Except the fact that the detenu was found missing by the writ petitioner, no other allegations are set out in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. This being the factum of the case, we of the opinion that the scope of the Habeas Corpus Petition is certainly limited. The Habeas Corpus Petition cannot be entertained in a routine manner. However, such petitions are to be entertained only if an allegation of illegal detention is established or atleast a strong suspicion with substantial proof are established before this Court.

5. The Status Report reveals that the petitioner and the detenu lead a marital life for about four years from the date of marriage. However the detenu informed the petitioner that he is going to his father's house at Periapatti, Namakkal District on 08.10.2011. Thereafter, the detenue had not returned back to home. It is curious to note that the writ petitioner had lodged the police complaint only on 12.08.2017, after a lapse of about six years from the date of missing of her husband/detenu. Thus, the petitioner herself was not vigilant and not taken care about the whereabouts of her husband for about 6 years. Thus, no Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained.

6. This Court is frequently witnessing that Man/Women Missing cases are converted as Habeas Corpus petitions. Two aspects are to be considered, fundamental right of a citizen for free movement is also a fundamental right, enshrined under the Constitution of India. Personal liberty is also a fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. It is