ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus against the alleged detenue who is the wife of the petitioner. The petitioner complains through learned counsel, that the alleged detenue is with the respondent No.6 who is the petitioner’s neighbour. Counsel submits that the alleged detenue has left the petitioner’s matrimonial home to live with the respondent No.6. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not allowed to meet his wife/alleged detenue by the respondent No.6 and his family members.

2. The learned Special Government Pleader (S.G.P) has handed over written instructions which contains three earlier complaints filed by the same petitioner with the Meerpet Police Station on 18.04.2023, 23.01.2024 and 11.09.2024. All the three complaints/FIR’s were lodged with the Meerpet Police Station. The S.G.P submits that although Station House Officer (SHO), Meerpet has not been made a party to the present writ petition, the S.G.P. has obtained instructions that the alleged detenue has appeared before the Meerpet Police Station to say that she has voluntarily left the petitioner’s house to live with the respondent No.6.

3. The written instructions also plead that the SHO of the Saidabad Police Station has registered a Criminal Case under the missing person category on 19.03.2025 and he is taking all required steps pursuant to that case. The concerned SHO has also dispatched Look Out Notices to all Police Stations with a request to display the Look Out Notices on their Notice Boards.

4. It is clear from the above facts that the alleged detenue, who is an adult, has voluntarily left the petitioner’s house. This is a fit case where the concerned SHO should take necessary steps with reference to the complaints lodged with the Police. In fact, all such necessary steps have already been taken by the concerned SHO. The written instructions show that the petitioner has filed three earlier complaints for locating the alleged detenue before the Meerpet Police Station. The facts presented to the Court do not disclose any basis for invoking the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the petitioner’s complaint to the Saidabad Police Station also shows that the petitioner is aware of the location of the alleged detenue in the house of the respondent No.6.

5. Hence, this is clearly not a case either of disappearance or illegal detention where the Court would be persuaded to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the alleged detenue before the Court. The petitioner has not been able to place any facts which would show that the alleged detenue has been illegally detained by the respondent No.6 or that the concerned SHO has failed to take necessary steps to locate the alleged detenue.

6. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. W.P.No.8580 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.

Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 24.03.2025 VSU