The main legal point established in the judgment is that executing a registered document and declaring as husband and wife does not confer the status of a husband under marriage laws, and the entitlement to maintain a petition for habeas corpus is contingent upon the existence of a valid marriage.

Krishnamoorthy, J.

In both these Original Petitions a common question arises and accordingly they are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The question involved in O.P.No. 3771 of 1992 is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for the production of a girl, Deepa Ravindran, who is the daughter of the 1st respondent. The further question to be decided is as to whether the custody of a parent in the circumstances can be said U; be unlawful, warranting interference by this Court.

3. Petitioner alleges in his petition that himself and Deepa Ravindran were neighbours and that they have been in love for long eversince their childhood. The parents and other relatives were not agreeable to their relationship and on 11-3-1992, petitioner and Deepa eloped from their respective houses and were staying with the petitioner's mother's sister's daughter at a place called Narakathodu. It is further alleged in the petition that they entered into a registered marriage agreement (No. 42/82) dated 12-3-1992 before the Sub Registrar's Office, Thengana; a copy of the above agreement is produced as Ext. P1. According to the petitioner, they became husband and wife by execution of that registered document and they were residing as such in his sister's house at Narakathodu. While so, on 16-3-1992, father of Deepa and two other persons represented to them that they will conduct a formal marriage between the petitioner and Deepa and on that pretext took Deepa also along with them, who is now residing with her parents. According to the petitioner, the representation made by the 1st respondent was only a ruse to take Deepa Ravindran out of the custody of the petitioner and she is kept in illegal custody against her wish by the respondents. The 1st respondent is the father of Deepa and the 2nd respondent is his sister's son.

4. Petitioner alleges that intention of the respondents was to separate Deepa from him and she is kept in illegal custody against her wish. It is also alleged by him that she is a major and is capable of expressing her free will. According to him, it is against her will and desire that the respondents have been illegally detaining her. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of Deepa Ravindran, wife of the petitioner, in court and order her release.

5. The first question to be decided is as to whether a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. Petitioner throughout in the petition maintains that he is the husband of the girl Deepa, on the basis of a registered document executed by the petitioner and Deepa on 12-3-1992 before the Sub Register's Office, Thengana. Both parties are Hindus and it is well-settled that in order to claim the status of a husband, they should have undergone a form of marriage prescribed under law. Executing a registered document and declaring that they are husband and wife will not confer the status of a husband on the petitioner because it is not one of the recognised forms of marriage in law. There is no case for the petitioner that he had married Deepa in the customary form. In these circumstances, we have to proceed on the basis that the petitioner is not the husband of Deepa.

6. The question involved in the case is regarding the custody of a girl, though, no doubt, according to the petitioner, she is a major. Even assuming that she is a major, the question is whether in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to maintain an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus .for the production of her body and also as to whether the custody of the father in such circumstances can be said to be unlawful. We do not think that having control and supervision of an aged girl by the parents will amount to illegal custody warranting the issue of a writ by this