Bhubaneswar: The Orissa high court on Wednesday dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking the “release of his wife and minor child,” whom he alleged were wrongfully detained by his wife’s brother.
The court termed the petition a “classic example of misuse and abuse” of the legal process to settle personal scores and imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, Vikram Kumar Badaik, a resident of Rourkela.
A division bench of chief justice Harish Tandon and justice MS Raman said no evidence was found to support his allegations of unlawful detention, adding that the wife was living with her parents of her own volition due to “disharmony in the matrimonial relationship.”
The bench asked Badaik to deposit the fine with the State Legal Service Authority within two weeks.
“It is a classic example of misuse and abuse of the concept of habeas corpus. The petitioner is well aware that his wife has left the matrimonial home for reasons known both to the petitioner and his wife, but has filed the writ petition inviting the court to exercise its power to issue the writ of habeas corpus to settle a personal score,” the division bench observed.
Also Read: Orissa HC imposes ₹82 lakh penalty on govt for demolition despite stay order
{{/usCountry}}Also Read: Orissa HC imposes ₹82 lakh penalty on govt for demolition despite stay order
{{/usCountry}}The court said the petition failed to “instil confidence” in his truthfulness or trustworthiness as a litigant. Questioning the authenticity of the petitioner’s claim that he had approached the police prior to filing the petition, the HC said no prior police complaints were lodged and the document submitted as evidence appeared to be fabricated.
Also Read: Supreme Court upholds Orissa high court’s power to suo motu designate senior advocate
Emphasising that habeas corpus is meant to protect fundamental rights, the bench said it cannot be misused to coerce a spouse.
“The husband cannot compel the wife to act as per his dictum nor treat her as his commodity. The fundamental right conferred upon every individual, irrespective of gender, cannot be treated as one-way traffic,” the bench said.