Harilal, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the petitioner's husband namely, Mohammedkutty @ Mohammed Kurinhilayil before this Court and release him forthwith.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the wife of the alleged detenue, by name Mohammedkutty @ Mohammed Kurinhilayil and she was married to the aforesaid detenue on 10.5.1989. The marriage was solemnized at Calicut according to Islamic religious rites and thereafter the petitioner and the aforesaid detenue were residing as husband and wife in Kerala as well as in Sharja. The petitioner and the detenue were employed at Sharja during this period and they were living together as husband and wife for the last 25 years. The 3rd respondent is the second wife of the detenue and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the father and brother of the 3rd respondent.
The 3rd respondent is residing with respondent Nos.4 and 5 in their residential house, which belongs to the detenue. The petitioner was told by her husband that he married the 3rd respondent for looking after his aged parents. During 2012, the detenue cancelled his visa and settled in his village at Edappal and thereafter the petitioner has been frequently visiting the detenue. She came in the last March and stayed along with the detenue and returned to Sharja in April. Thereafter the petitioner reached Kerala on 17.8.2014 at 12.30 a.m. at Calicut Airport. She was told by the detenue that he will be in the Airport to receive her on the arrival. But, she could not see him there. When she called him in his phone numbers, he was not available in phone. So, she herself returned to her home. Thereafter she went to the present residence of the detenue, but respondents 3 to 5 scolded her and told her that he is not there. When she tried to contact him over phone, the phone was switched off. Since she suspected her husband is also trying to cheat her, she filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the learned Magistrate has issued an interim order restraining the respondents from causing any mental or physical harassment to the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that her husband is in the illegal custody of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and he is detained by the respondents against his will. Even though the petitioner filed a complaint to the Kuttippuram Police to release him from the illegal detention of respondents 3 to 5, the police Authorities have not taken any action in this regard till this date. This is the grievance projected in the writ petition.
3. When this writ petition came up for admission on 21.10.2014, We admitted the writ petition and issued notice to respondents 3 to 5 and directed them to produce the detenue before this Court today. Respondents 1 and 2 were also directed to see that respondents 3 to 5 have complied with the said direction.
4. Today, the detenue is produced before this Court in compliance with the direction in the order dated 21.10.2014. We interacted with the detenue. He emphatically denied all the averments in the writ petition. He submitted before us that the petitioner is not his legally wedded wife. When we asked about the illegal detention alleged by the petitioner, he denied the same and submitted that he is not under the illegal detention of respondents 3 to 5. When the detenue, a person aged 46 years appears before this Court and submits before us that he is not under the illegal detention of anybody else, this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue any further order invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is the wife of the detenue. But, we are of the opinion that, the legality of the marriage or status of the petitioner is not a matter to be considered in this writ petition. We are satisfied that the detenue is not under the illegal custody of respondents 3 to 5.
Consequently, we dismiss the writ petition.
Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
K. HARILAL, JUDGE.
Jvt