Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to adjudicate matrimonial disputes involving disputed facts or routine police inquiries.

The petitioner, Manisha Sarthi, filed a writ petition seeking police protection and a direction to restrain the police and private respondents from interfering in her personal liberty.

The petitioner is currently living separately from her husband (Respondent No. 5) and has initiated divorce proceedings in a Family Court.

She alleged that Respondent No. 5, along with Respondents No. 4 and 6, was harassing her and making false allegations of an illicit relationship between her and one Satyavan.

Furthermore, she contended that the local police (Respondents No. 2 and 3) were repeatedly summoning her to the police station without proper notice or preliminary inquiry, based on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 4, thereby violating her fundamental rights under Article 21.

The State argued that the police were merely conducting a lawful inquiry into a received complaint and that no coercive action had been taken.

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere in police inquiries arising out of private matrimonial disputes.

2. Whether the repeated summoning of the petitioner by the police for inquiry constitutes a violation of fundamental rights warranting judicial intervention.

The Court primarily relied on the principles governing the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is reserved for addressing violations of fundamental rights or the failure of statutory authorities to perform legal duties.

The Court also referenced the protections of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the settled legal principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate disputed questions of fact arising from private or matrimonial discords, nor can it be used to interfere with the legitimate investigative domain of the police unless an abuse of process is clearly demonstrated.

The Court observed that the crux of the dispute was a matrimonial conflict between the petitioner and Respondent No. 5, leading to secondary allegations by private parties.

The Bench reasoned that the petitioner’s grievances involved "disputed questions of fact" regarding personal relationships and harassment, which are not suitable for adjudication in a writ proceeding.

Regarding the police conduct, the Court found that merely summoning a person for inquiry pursuant to a complaint is a standard part of investigative procedure and is not per se illegal or arbitrary, provided no coercive measures are employed.

Since the State confirmed no coercive action was taken, the Court determined there was no evidence of a clear abuse of process or a violation of law that necessitated the invocation of its extraordinary powers.

The Court held that grievances arising from matrimonial disputes and police inquiries should be addressed by availing appropriate statutory remedies before competent forums rather than through a writ petition.

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate authorities or competent courts for relief as permitted by law.