Gyan Sudha Misra, J.
1. This writ petition for habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner, Suresh Kumar Yadav, alleging illegal detention and confinement of the detenue, Anuradha, by the respondents herein, who are the parents of detenue on the averments that the petitioner and the detenue Anuradha had developed liking for each other and wanted to marry to lead their life together. This enraged the parents of Anuradha and therefore, they pressurised and tortured her so that she could give up her determination to marry the petitioner. It was alleged by the petitioner that the girl's parents, who are respondents No. 1 and 2 here in, were secretly making arrangements to marry the detenue with another person against her wishes. It was, therefore, prayed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the girl with the direction to allow her to go and live as per her choice and wish.
2. It is quite obvious from the facts stated hereinbefore that the petitioner, prima facie, failed to make out a case for issuing a writ of habeas corpus as the alleged detenue is neither his legally wedded wife nor there is an iota of evidence that the detenue was illegally detained by her parents, It is well established that until the factum of wrongful confinement and illegal detention are established, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued. But, taking into consideration the social conditions where the instances are not wanting that even a major girl is kept in illegal confinement in order to pressurise her to enter into marriage with a person which may not be in her interest even at times by the parents and in that situation the girl is utterly helpless, we thought it proper to issue a show cause notice to the respondents. But we are equally aware as we had occasions to notice, that a large number of writ petitions for habeas corpus on similar facts are filed in this Court alleging illegal detention by parents, but in most cases they are found to be absolutely frivolous barring exceptions. In order to strike a balance between the two extreme situations. We thought it just and appropriate to direct the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in this Court making it clear to the petitioner that in case the allegations are found to be reckless and unfounded, the said amount shall be forfeited. The petitioner without even giving any second thought, agreed to deposit the amount and in fact deposited it. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents.
3. However, after service of notice on the respondents, an affidavit has been filed by the alleged detenue Anuradha herself which has turned the table against the petitioner. It has been stated therein on oath by Anuradha, aged 20 years, that she is living with her parents without any compulsion from them and that she is not in illegal detention in their custody. It has been further stated by her that she neither wanted nor is willing to many Suresh Kumar the petitioner herein. A rejoinder to the said counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner Suresh Kumar that the affidavit has been filed by Anuradha after the family members of the girl intervened into the matter and a meeting was arranged on 27.1.1996, after which Anuradha agreed to respect the will of her parents and on the assurance that the parents will not torture their daughter, the petitioner agreed to withdraw the writ petition from this Court. It has been stated that this was on account of the influence of the girl's relative Smt. Kiran Devi that the settlement between the petitioner and the respondents took place. It is therefore, quite apparent that this writ petition has since become infructuous and the question whether a writ could be issued or not, under the circumstnces of this case has become redundant.
3A. The question, however, now remains as to whether the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which had been deposited by the petitioner, should be refunded to him or it should be paid to the respondents, who are the alleged detenue's parents. Counsel for the petitioner Shri Sirohi has vehemently opposed the payment of cost to the respondents and, has submitted that the same should be refunded to the petitioner. On having considered this question, we do not propose to accede to the request on behalf of the petitioner as we feel that no leniency is required In a matter of this nature, where the petitioner, although, was not even married to the alleged detenue Anuradha, had the audacity to go to the extent of filing this frivolous writ petition without any material to his credit that the girl, alleged to be in illegal detention of her parents was interested in the petitioner in any manner. Rather it was a mere figment of his imagination. If the girl, who is a major aged twenty years, has failed to corroborate the statement of the petitioner, the Court is left with no option than to infer that the petitioner's case is nothing but a network of falsehood. It is no doubt true that according to the petitioner, it was due to intervention of Smt. Kira Devi a family member on whose advice, a settlement took place, but even her affidavit has not been filed by the petitioner. When such writ petitions are filed in this Court, it is not only the legitimate expectation of this Court and as a matter of prudence but also a rule of procedure that a petitioner who moves the court under its writ jurisdiction must have exhausted all possible avenues and alternate remedies before he goes to the extent of filing a writ petition and not the other way round. But time and again we had occasions' to witness situations that such writ petitions are filed with utter irresponsibility and only in exceptional cases the allegations are found to be true. The Court, therefore, while on the one hand cannot remain a silent spectator to such situations as it has been laid down in a number of cases vide : 1964CriLJ590 Mohd. Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 1975 Cr. L.J. 1531, T. Ramchandran v. V.K. Kuttan, that a writ of habeas corpus would lie in a given situation even if, the detenue is not under illegal detention of State agency and the Court had intervened even in regard to a detention of an individual by a private party, yet it cannot allow the parties to use this Court as a tool of pressure to fulfill a desire which has no factual foundation. The result of this situation is that spate of writ petitions are filed giving rise to complex circumstances leaving the Court into a predicament. We, therefore, thought it proper in the interest of justice to lay down condition of deposit of Rs. 5,000/- before issuing, a show cause notice which is clearly permissible also, under Rule 378 of the Rules of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952, which states as follows--
378. The Court may, before issuing notice of the application, impose upon the applicant such terms as to costs or the giving of security as it may think fit.
4. In a case of this nature we feel that deposit of certain amount before issuing shown cause notice is most imperative as this Court expects writ petitions, especially of this nature should be filed with utmost care and caution and only after all the alternatives available are fully exhausted as a family along with the girl is unnecessarily dragged into a litigation which in the process also scandalises the family resulting into loss of reputation of the girl as well as her family. We, therefore, do not propose to take a lenient view and, we are of the opinion that if the allegation levelled by a writ petitioner is ultimately found to be false, heavy cost is most warranted which should be paid to the parents, who are forced to enter into a frivolous litigation. The situation, however, would certainly be altered if the girl is found to be in the illegal detention even though under the relatives or her parents.
5. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, in the instant case, we see no justification for refund of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner as it was expected of him to move a Court of law, only after exhausting all the alternative remedies including the intervention and mediation by the family assuming that the averments alleged by him are true. We accordingly direct the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to pay the amount of Rs. 5,000/- deposited in this Court by the petitioner by getting a demand draft issued in favour of Shri Chiranjilal Yadav, the respondent herein, the, father of the alleged detenue Anuradha.
6. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs as indicated above