JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri V. V. L. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y. N. Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to produce the person of "A" daughter of the respondent No.5 (We have not mentioned the full particulars as in the prayer, but are referring to the alleged detenue as "A") before this Court and to set her at liberty and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner is married to one Kamala Kumari and blessed with a child. Due to some disputes between them she filed some cases against the petitioner including MC, 498-A etc. The petitioner also filed divorce OP against his wife.

4. With respect to the prayer for Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the daughter of the respondent No.5, "A", the petitioner's case is that she is major and came to the petitioner's place in the Month of July, 2023. They have been living together in relationship. The respondent No.5 gave some complaint to the Palakoderu Police Station, West Godavari regarding missing of "A". On such complaint, the Police called the petitioner on 23.07.2023. Both went to Police Station on 25.07.2023. Later on, on 27.07.2023, the respondent No.5 with his family members and some others, about 20 persons came to the house of the petitioner's relative, abused the petitioner and forced "A" to accompany them. The petitioner also alleged about some snatching of the petitioner's mobile, some cards etc. It was further alleged that the petitioner's complaint was not received by the respondent No.4 who did not take any action, as well. On the said averment, submitting that the custody of "A" with the respondent No.5 is illegal custody the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been prayed.

5. We find that even as per the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is married to one Kamala Kumari. There is no divorce though it is alleged that the divorce petition is pending.

6. We further find that the date of "A" allegedly going to the petitioner is in the month of July, 2023. With respect to the incident dated 27.07.2023, though it is submitted that the petitioner's complaint was not received by the respondent No.4, but any copy of such representation is not annexed to the writ petition. Further if the report was not received, what further action the petitioner took, as was open under law, has also not been disclosed. If the report was not received, the petitioner could have approached the Senior Superintendent of Police or/and could also have sent the complaint through registered post and he could also have approached the competent Court of law under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) of even under Section 200 Cr.P.C. But nothing has been brought on record, except bald allegation without any evidence/material in the form of documents annexed to the writ affidavit.

7. Filing a Writ for Habeas Corpus seeking production of alleged detenue in Court and setting him or her free from the parental home in particular, and that too at the instance of a person, as the present petitioner, a married person seeking liberty of a girl, may be major, on the ground of the petitioner allegedly living in relationship with her, in our view, cannot be encouraged.

8. We are not oblivious of the freedom of an individual attaining the age of majority, of his/her right to marry a person of choice or of even living in relationship with person of own choice without entering into wedlock, as such right of a person is considered a fundamental right to life and personal liberty flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. In Nandakumar and another vs. State of Kerala and others, (2018) 16 SCC 602, the Hon'ble Apex Court o