MP High Court Rejects Man's Habeas Corpus Plea After Wife Says She Was Never Married to Him

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Jabalpur bench has disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by a man who claimed his wife was illegally confined by her father, after the woman herself told the court that no marriage had taken place and that she wanted to go back to her parents. The court did not stop at closing the case. It directed the police constable who produced the young woman before it to act as her "Shourya Didi," or mentor, for the next six months, invoking a rehabilitative concept the same court had evolved earlier.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma passed the order on August 20, 2026, in a writ petition filed by Nishant Shekhar Gupta, who alleged that his wife, referred to in the case as the "corpus," was being unlawfully held by her father, arrayed as respondent no.5. Shri Yogesh Singh Baghel and Shri Praveen Kumar Mishra appeared for the petitioner, Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Deputy Advocate General, represented the State, and Shri Premendra Singh appeared for the woman's father.

According to the petitioner's case, he had married the woman and after the marriage she went to her parental home and continued to stay there, prompting him to move the High Court seeking her production and custody. The State opposed the petition, telling the court that the woman's father had lodged a missing person report on July 14, 2026, raising apprehensions about the petitioner, and that police had traced and recovered her the same day from the petitioner's possession.

The Bench recorded that the police produced the woman before the court along with A.S.I. Laldas Choudhary and Lady Head Constable Sarita Rathore from Police Station Kotwali in Shahdol district. When the court questioned her directly about her wishes, her answer left little room for ambiguity. As the order notes, "she categorically submits that she is major and she wants to live with her father (respondent No.5) and does not want to live with petitioner. No marriage is being solemnized between petitioner and corpus." The court further recorded her account that the "petitioner abducted corpus, while making false promise to give her ride to her house," and that although she "lived for a day with petitioner" under "duress and threat," this did not amount to her entering into wedlock.

With the woman herself rejecting the petitioner's version, the bench disposed of the petition, directing that she be handed back to her father, who was told to "take care of her well." The petitioner was restrained from extending "any threat, intimidation or influence" over her, from moving in her vicinity, and from causing her any "embarrassment/harassment," with liberty left to the police to act on any complaint in accordance with law.

The more notable part of the order lies in what came after. The bench asked Lady Head Constable Sarita Rathore, who had escorted the woman to court, to act as her "Shourya Didi" for six months, a role the same High Court had detailed in Harchand Gurjar v. State of MP. That earlier ruling had observed that women recovered from "perpetrators of crime" often carry hidden "dejection, despondency and depression," even when they appear willing to return home, and flagged the risk of "Stockholm Syndrome" in such situations. It had proposed that a "Shourya Didi," a woman constable, sub-inspector, or Women and Child Development Department staffer, could mentor and encourage such women to pursue education or vocational training and rebuild their lives, rather than leaving them to navigate the aftermath alone.

Applying that framework, the bench directed the constable to stay in regular touch with the woman and check on her well-being over the coming months. Recording the parties' undertakings and the overall facts of the case before it, the court finally held that the petition had "outlived its purpose" and formally disposed of it as infructuous.

Case Title: Nishant Shekhar Gupta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: August 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma