The factum of wrongful confinement and illegal custody must be established through methods known to law before issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus.

This is a motion for Habeas Corpus for release of Beenakumari, stated to be the petitioner's wife, from the alleged unlawful detention by her parents, respondents Nos. 1 and 2. According to the petitioner he married Beenakumari on 14-4-1975 and Ext. A-1 agreement was executed and registered by them the same day. Ext. A-2 dated 18-4-1975 is an application filed by the 1st respondent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum for initiating proceedings under Sections 97 and 98 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 1973 on the ground that the petitioner and his associates kidnapped Beenakumari, and Ext. A-3 dated 21-4-1975 is Beenakumari's sworn statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum. Before the Chief Judicial Magistrate she stated that it was her desire to go with her parents for the time being and the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed Ext. A-4 order on the same day upholding her freedom to go with any person of her choice. Obviously she went with her parents. She is stated to have sent the original of Ext. A-5 letter two days thereafter, on 23-4-1975, (one of the Counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed an affidavit identifying the original - how far this is proper is another question) to the petitioner complaining that her life was as if in prison, that her life was in danger and that she was subjected to all sorts of sufferings : Ext. A-3 statement was sought to be explained therein as one given to save the life of the petitioner.

2. Pursuant to the summons and notice the respondents are present before us along with their daughter Beenakumari. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations in the petition and the averments in the affidavit in support of it to the effect that Beenakumari was being kept in unlawful custody by them. It is also averred in the counter-affidavit that Beenakumari was occasionally going out and meeting her friends and relatives. Counsel's competency to swear that Ext. A-5 was written by Beenakumari is challenged by the respondents. It is also pointed out in the counter-affidavit that Ext. A-1 was cancelled by Beenakumari by document No. 45 of 1975 of the Ezhukon Sub-Registry Office. The learned counsel obtained that document from Beenakumari and placed it before us. We have gone through that and therein it is stated that Ext. A-1 had been got executed under undue influence and fraud and against her will.

3. Ext. A-1 was on 14-4-1975. Thereafter it appears that there were some proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court. Trivandrum which ultimately ended by Beenakumari giving Ext. A-3 statement to the effect that she wished to go along with her parents. Ext. A-3 was on 21-4-1975. Ext. A-5 letter alleged to be that of Beenakumari is of 23-4-1975. Document No. 45 of 1975 of Ezhukon Sub-Registry Office is dated 7-5-1975. Though Ext. A-5 letter is dated 23-4-1975 and though the petitioner admittedly received that letter on 24-4-1975, he came to this Court only on 7-5-1975 on which date document No. 45 of 1975 aforesaid was executed by Beenakumari. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed before us for perusal another letter dated 26-4-1975 alleged to have been sent by Beenakumari to the petitioner's sister. But we are not inclined to go into the contents of that document, particularly in view of the fact that it is not a letter addressed to the petitioner.

4. The sequence of events being as stated above and since the factum of unlawful detention is being disputed by the respondents we asked the counsel for the petitioner before questioning Beenakumari as to whether on these materials we would be justified in issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus holding that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are keeping their daughter under illegal custody and wrongful confinement as alleged in the petition and in the affidavit in support thereof. We particularly drew the learned counsel's attention to the fact that such an act on the part of respondents, if e