Bhubaneswar: Ruling that a wife cannot be treated as her husband’s property and is free to decide where she wishes to live, the Orissa High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man seeking the release of his wife from alleged illegal detention and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him.
“She cannot be treated as a chattel in the hands of her husband. If she has decided to live separately due to the alleged torture perpetrated upon her, this forum cannot be used to secure her presence before this Court and/or in the matrimonial house,” a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed.
The court found that the woman had voluntarily left her matrimonial home owing to marital discord and was not under any form of unlawful confinement, rendering the petition wholly misconceived.
Dismissing the plea, the Bench said the case is a classic example of a growing tendency among litigants to invoke the extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus to settle personal scores and exert pressure in matrimonial disputes.
“It is one of the classical examples where the husband has approached this Court to pressurise the wife who left home voluntarily because of disharmony in the matrimonial relationship,” the Bench noted.
The petitioner had himself visited the residence of a person whom he accused of kidnapping his wife and requested her to return home. The woman, however, declined to accompany him, the Bench also noted in the order.
Questioning the very basis of the kidnapping allegation, the court observed that the woman was a major, fully capable of making independent decisions about her life and could not be compelled to return to her matrimonial home against her wishes.
Expressing concern over the increasing misuse of habeas corpus petitions in matrimonial conflicts, the Bench observed that such writs are often filed not to secure the liberty of a person allegedly under illegal detention but as a means to pressure estranged spouses.
“A recent trend has developed in filing frequent writ petitions in the nature of habeas corpus to settle personal scores or to use the Court as a tool to pressurise the other side so that he or she may succumb to the aspirations of the litigant,” the order said.
Holding that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, the court said the petitioner had failed to approach it with clean hands and had instead created “an illusory cause of action through clever draftsmanship.”
The Bench, dismissing the petition, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 50,000 with the State Legal Services Authority within two weeks, ordering that the fund shall be kept in an account earmarked for the welfare of juveniles.
