Rathore, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This habeas corpus petition has been jointly filed by Vikrant Singhal and Gopal Singhal, who are residents of Jatiyawas, inside Madar Gate, Ajmer. Shri Vikrant Singhal is aged about 23 years and is son of Gopal Singhal. Petitioner No.2 Gopal Singhal aged 61 years, is father of petitioner No.1 Vikrant Singhal.

It has been prayed by the petitioners that habeas corpus petition be allowed and respondent No.1, 2 and 3 i.e. Director General of Police, Jaipur; Superintendent of Police, Ajmer and SHO, Police Station Mahila Thana, Alwar Gate, Ajmer, respectively be directed to produce respondent No.4 Parvati Agarwal D/o Radhakishan Agarwal, resident of Opposite Moti Begam Maszid Lane, Ghansi Bazar, Hyderabad (A.P.). Further, it has been prayed that respondent No.6- General Manager, Facebook, Head Office, Banglore (India) be directed not to delete the massages sent by respondent No.4.

3. The petitioners, father and the son, have averred in the writ petition that petitioner No.2 is running a business of plastic household items in the name of M/s. Singhal Packaging at Ajmer and petitioner No.1 is also involved in the said business of his father. Further, it is averred by the petitioners that Vikrant Singhal, petitioner No.1 and Parvati Agarwal-respondent No.4 are known to each other and they are in contact for last about two years. The petitioners have also averred that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.4 are booming friends. They had been contacting each other through phone, internet, etc.

The petitioners have averred that Parvati Agarwal respondent No.4 had gone to Ajmer in the year 2013 and had proposed petitioner No.1 to marry. It is also stated that she remained at Ajmer for about 18 days, but petitioner no.1 Vikrant Singhal declined to marry against the will of his parents. On 16.02.2014, respondent No.4 had disclosed to her mother about her being in contract with petitioner No.1 Vikrant Singhal. It is alleged that thereafter respondent No.5 Radhakishan Agarwal had beaten respondent No.4. It is also averred in the writ petition that respondent No.4 had informed petitioner No.1 Vikrant Singhal about the fact that her parents had taken away her mobile and disconnected the internet. It is also stated that respondent No.4 was restrained from study and to go to the college.

4. Respondent No.4 is said to have made the last call to petitioner No.1 on 18.02.2014 and the petitioners are having the apprehension of illegal detention of respondent No.4 Parvati Agarwal. The petitioners are said to have approached the police station concerned to lodge a first information report but that was denied. The District Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate were also contacted by the petitioners, but no heed was paid in respect of their grievances.

5. The notices in the case were issued to respondent No.5 and 6. After service, respondent No.5 has filed reply to the writ petition whereby he has contested the same and requested that it may be dismissed with an exemplary cost. It is stated in the reply that respondent No.4 is in lawful custody of her parents in parental house at Hyderabad. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.4 is in illegal detention and as such, the habeas corpus petition be dismissed. It is also averred in the reply that respondent No.4 never came to Ajmer. According to the answering respondent, the petitioners have no locus standi to file the writ petition. Further, it is stated that no cause of action had arose under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It has been averred in the reply that after service of notice of the writ petition, the answering respondent appeared before the Court personally on 25.03.2014 alongwith respondent No.4 on their own, without there being any order for personal appearance passed by the Court. Therefore, it is clear that the present case is not a one of illegal detention. It is also submitted that respondent No.4 was busy in p