Telangana High Court: In a habeas corpus petition filed by a husband seeking production of his wife who had left the home due to alleged physical abuse by the petitioner-husband, the Division Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya and Madhusudhan Rao Bobbili Ramaiah, JJ., dismissed the writ petition while holding that the Court must circumspect cases where the disappearance was voluntary or detention satisfied due process. The Court also reiterated that in such cases, the appropriate course of action was to register a missing person case.
Background
Allegedly, the petitioner used to physically abuse his wife, including with acid, on one pretext or the other. He would also suspect her of being in a relationship with another person. Due to the threat to her life, the petitioner’s wife left her home and gave a statement to the police. Thus, the petitioner filed this petition.
Analysis
The Court referred to Nenavath Bujji v. State of Telangana 2024 SCC OnLine SC 367 and stated that by all counts, the writ of habeas corpus was the most powerful safeguard against arbitrary acts of the executive, or even of private individuals, transgressing personal liberty.
The Court also referred to State v. H. Nilofer Nisha (2020) 14 SCC 161, wherein it was held that a writ of habeas corpus could only be issued when detention or imprisonment was without authority of law, i.e., when the person was under illegal detention. It was noted that with the expansion of the scope of habeas corpus, the writ was often used against a spouse who had been illegally detained by his/her parents or in cases of custody of a child.
The Court remarked that it was important to sound a word of caution regarding cases where missing men and women were sought to be produced before the Court through this mechanism. Relying on the case Selvaraj v. State1, the Court reiterated that the more appropriate course of action in such cases was to register a missing person case in the jurisdictional police station. These cases should be dealt with by the competent Court of law without invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts.
The Court added that considering the width of the power of a Writ Court to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus on such a sovereign and transcendent authority, the Courts must be circumspect where the petitioner seeks to invoke this extraordinary remedy in matters where either the act of disappearance was voluntary or where the detention satisfied due process. The Court stated, “The reach of the power conferred on the Court cannot be run down by seeking directions at random where the law has already charted a course to secure justice.”
Thus, the Court held that considering the statement of the wife, there was no reason to keep the present petition pending, and accordingly, it was dismissed.
[N. Kiran v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine TS 146, decided on 10-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: K.R. Vijay
For the respondent: Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government Pleader
1. H.C.P. No. 2309 of 2016
