Read Time: 05 minutes

The Allahabad High Court while rejecting a habeas corpus writ petition stated that, “the remedy of a writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a person seeking to obtain possession of someone whom he claims to be his wife would not be available as a matter of course and the power in this regard may be exercised only when a clear case is made out.”

The single bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that,

“The necessary jurisdictional fact to be established for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus would be dependent on the applicant establishing a prima facie case that the detention is unlawful.”

The facts of the present petition the petitioner no.1 state that “she has stated that she is presently living with some of her relatives on account of a matrimonial discord. On a specific query (rule nisi) she has submitted that she is staying with her relatives on her own sweet will and without there being any threat or coercion. She has also stated that she does not wish to go back to her husband, i.e. petitioner no. 2, and that she desires to go back to her relatives from where she has come.”

Taking into account the factual matrix of the case the bench relied upon the judgment in Mohammad Ikram Hussain vs. State of U.P. and others and Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate Darjeeling where it was held that,

“The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ and an extraordinary remedy. It is writ of right and not a writ of course and may be granted only on reasonable ground or probable cause being shown.”

“In a recent decision of this Court in Soniya and another vs. State of U.P. and others, this Court has held that the remedy of a writ of habeas corpus at the instance of   a   person   seeking   to   obtain   possession   of   someone whom he claims to be his wife would not be available as a matter of course and the power in this regard may be exercised only when a clear case is made out.” – noted the bench

Hence, the bench dismissed the present petition and also the rule nisi issued earlier is not   required to be made absolute. “The petitioner no. 1 would be at liberty to go back to the place   from where she has come or wherever she desires.”

Case Title - Smt. Manjita Devi And Another Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others,2021

Access Copy of Judgment Here