This court directed the production of the petitioner corpus. Upon appearance, the corpus stated she was unmarried and wished to reside with her parents. The court consequently rejected the habeas corpus petition and did not grant the relief sought.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 64
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 982 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Anshika Tyagi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mahendra Pratap
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Shri Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.5 and 6 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
On the last occasion dated 21.12.2022, the following order was passed :-
"Heard Shri Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.
The instant Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by petitioners with the following prayers:-
"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus thereby directing the respondent no. 2 to 6 to produce the Corpus/Petitioner No.1 (detenue) namely Smt. Anshika Tyagi before this Hon'ble Court who has illegally detained by the respondent no. 5 and 6. She may be set at liberty forthwith and her custody be handed over to petitioner no.2 (her Husband).
II. Issue any order suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case.
III. Award the costs of the petition to the petitioners."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that marriage of the petitioner no. 1 (corpus) was performed with petitioner no. 2 and after marriage both were residing as husband and wife but in the meantime on 7.11.2022 respondent nos. 5 and 6 (parents of the corpus) have implicated the petitioner no.2 in a criminal case and thereafter they forcibly detained petitioner no. 1, the corpus and the wife of petitioner no. 2 in their illegal custody.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 although opposed the prayer but stated that he is ready to produce the corpus before this Court on the date fixed by this Court.
In view of the above, it is directed that respondent nos. 5 and 6 shall produce the corpus i.e. petitioner No. 1 namely, Smt. Anshika Tyagi before this Court on 03.01.2023.
Put up this case as fresh on 03.01.2023."
In compliance of this order, the corpus has been produced today before this Court in the custody of parents - opposite party Nos.5 and 6.
Upon the matter being taken up, Ms. Anshika Tyagi (corpus) daughter of Mr. Abhilash Kumar Tyagi and Smt. Manisha Tyagi made a clear categorical statement that her age is 24 and that she has not married Mr. Prashant Sharma/petitioner No.2. She further stated that she wants to continue to reside with her parents.
In view of the above, the petition fails and is accordingly rejected .
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.1.2023 Rishabh
Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the corpus should be produced before the court as directed in the interim order.
Whether the wife's statement denying the marriage and preferring to reside with parents defeats the petitioner's claim for release.
Smt. Anshika Tyagi And Another
State Of U.P.
Mr. Abhilash Kumar Tyagi
Smt. Manisha Tyagi
Prashant Sharma
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Rishabh Kumar
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
