‘Not husband’s chattel’: Court fines man Rs 50,000 over plea to bring wife home

The court held that the husband had failed to approach the court with clean hands and had instead created “an illusory cause of action with the clever draftsmanship.”

A bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman dismissed the plea,

Habeas corpus plea

The court was hearing a petition filed by the husband, who alleged that his wife had been kidnapped and sought a writ of habeas corpus.

At the outset, the bench observed that there had been a growing trend of filing habeas corpus petitions to settle personal scores or to use the court as a tool to pressure the other side so that he/she may succumb to the aspiration of the litigant.

Remarking it as a classic example, the court noted that the husband had approached the court to pressurise the wife who left home voluntarily because of the disharmony in the matrimonial relationship.

The court observed that according to the document relied upon by the petitioner, he had gone to the house of another person whom he categorised as an accused person committing an offence of kidnapping and attempted to pacify their matrimonial dispute by requesting the wife to come back to the matrimonial house, but she refused such a proposal.

The court, however, rejected the allegation of kidnapping.

“We fathom to understand whether it would constitute an offence of kidnapping. Obviously, the wife is a major and capable of taking decision of her life and cannot be treated as a chattel in the hands of her husband,” the court observed.

‘Illusory cause of action’

• Emphasising the autonomy of an adult woman, the court said that the petitioner’s wife was free to make decisions about her own life.
• It remarked that the court cannot be used as a forum to secure her presence before the court or in the matrimonial house.
• “If she has decided to live apart for the alleged torture having perpetrated upon her, this forum cannot be used to secure her presence before this Court and/or in the matrimonial house,” the court noted.
• The court further observed that once matrimonial relations deteriorate, allegations and counter-allegations often follow, with habeas corpus petitions increasingly being filed as a means to settle personal scores rather than seeking genuine relief.
• “The moment the discordant relationship between the husband and wife grows, the allegation and the counter allegation started pouring and in a recent time the writ in the nature of habeas corpus is filed which cannot be said to be a genuine attempt but a device to settle the personal score,” the court noted.
• The court found that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, which was also corroborated by the statement of the petitioner.

Rs 50,000 costs imposed

The court therefore dismissed the plea and imposed Rs 50,000 cost on the husband.

“We, thus dismiss the writ petition with cost assessed at Rs 50,000 to be deposited by the petitioner before the State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from date. In the event of such deposit, the said amount shall be kept in an Account earmarked for the Juveniles,” the order read.

Telangana High Court ruling

In another case, the Telangana High Court set aside a family court’s order restraining a wife from going anywhere near her husband during the pendency of their divorce petition, citing behavioural and psychological issues.

A bench of Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar allowed an appeal filed by the wife challenging an interim injunction granted in favour of the husband in the divorce proceedings.

“To say the least, this kind of restraint is unusual and unprecedented. We are considering the lives of two individuals – and not chattels – whose movement or mobility can be blocked by orders of Court,” the Telangana High Court remarked in its order dated April 24.

The Telangana High Court remarked that the family court’s finding that the wife had a “psychiatric” and “psychopathic” disorder was bereft of any evidence.