Smt. Kherun and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 76

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 160 of 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Kherun And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned AGA for the State-respondents.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer seeking issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to produce petitioner no. 1 (corpus) before this Court and to set her at liberty from the alleged illegal detention by respondent no. 4- the father.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner no. 2, and their marriage was solemnized on 01.02.2025 at Muzaffarnagar in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 is presently residing with her father, respondent no. 4, allegedly against her will. It is further alleged that threats were extended to petitioner no. 2 to falsely implicate his family members in criminal proceedings. A written complaint is stated to have been submitted by petitioner no. 2 to respondent no. 2 through registered post on 16.02.2025, seeking appropriate action and the recovery of his wife from the alleged unlawful custody.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA submits that the remedy of habeas corpus is not maintainable in the present case, as the petition does not disclose any prima facie evidence of illegal detention. It is further contended that in matters involving matrimonial disputes or

¶9

custody arising out of domestic or familial discord, the writ of habeas corpus is not ordinarily maintainable.

¶10

The writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary and prerogative remedy, intended to secure the release of a person from illegal or unlawful detention. It is not a remedy to be invoked routinely, particularly in cases where the dispute pertains to matrimonial discord or custody and where other efficacious legal remedies are available under the civil or criminal law.

¶11

In the present case, it appears that petitioner no. 1 is residing with her father- respondent no. 4, and there is no credible or prima facie material on record to establish that she is under illegal confinement or restraint. In the absence of any cogent evidence of coercion, unlawful restraint, or confinement, no ground is made out for the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

In view of the above, and considering that appropriate remedies are available to the petitioner under the relevant provisions of civil and criminal law, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 PS

¶15

Vinod Diwakar, J.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Kherun and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kherun and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shweta Kumari and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivani Kumari and Another vs the State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mahendra Singh Cheema and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sarika Jha and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Uzra Tabassum and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others