The custody of a wife with her parents cannot be considered illegal confinement, and restoration of conjugal rights should be sought through the competent court.

JUDGMENT

In view of nature of the relief prayed for in the writ petition, we have decided to take up the writ petition first for decision. WP(Crl) No. 374/2022:

Mr. Sheikh Hilal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Sajad Ashraf, GA for R-1 to 3. Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad Sofi, Advocate for R-4.

1. Writ Petition bearing WP(Crl) No. 374/2022 is filed by Mohammad Jameel Gujar Poda S/o Alamud Din Poda R/o Doogar B. Walrahama Tehsil Langate District Kupwara, praying therein for the following relief(s):

'In the premises it is, therefore, prayed that the wife of the petitioner who is illegally detained by the private respondent no. 4 with the aid of the official respondents be produced here as her detention being violation of law once she is married to the petitioner and the detention is mad with unknown reasons;

Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.'

2. The relief is claimed on the ground that Respondent No. 4 has illegally confined the wife of the petitioner, namely, Ruqaya Ahad D/o Abdul Ahad Peer R/o Baderwah Tehsil Handwara District Kupwara, who is stated to be the father of said Ruqaya Ahad. The relief is based on the ground that marriage of the parties took place on 28.06.2019, as the parties to the marriage (petitioner and Ruqaya Ahad) being major and of sound mind and with full consent and without any coercion, entered into marriage agreement and have also performed Nikah in terms of the Shariah. It is submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court through the medium of writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 902/2022 seeking protection and the Writ Court in terms of order dated 06.05.2022, while recording the submissions of the petitioner and that of the Caveator, disposed of the said writ petition by providing that the petitioner shall only be dealt with in accordance with the law and nobody including the private respondent shall be permitted to take the law in their own hands and cause any harm or hurt to the petitioners.

3. Mr. Sheikh Hilal, learned appearing counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of Ruqaya Ahad, claimed to be the wife of the petitioner, was recorded in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Handwara under section 164-A of CrPC, admitting the marriage. On the basis of the decision rendered by the Writ Court in writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 902/2022, supported by the document(s) of Nikah Nama, the petitioner claims relief of declaring the custody of Ruqaya Ahad with the Respondent No. 4 as illegal, with further relief to produce her before this Court for further directions.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the matter and perused the documents available on the file.

5. Admittedly, the custody of the alleged wife of the petitioner is with her father and in terms of the applicable provisions of law governing the subject, same cannot be held to be an illegal confinement as the father/parents have every right to hold the custody of their children. This view is fortified by the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case titled 'Anjali Anil Rangari v. Anil Kripasagar Rangari & Ors,' reported as '(1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases 342'. In the event the petitioner has any grievance as regards the continuation of his legally maintainable marital relations with the said confinee, then, in such eventuality, the petitioner was required to approach the competent forum/Court for seeking restoration of conjugal rights. Such a relief can be claimed only subject to establishment of proper marital relations with the confinee on part of the petitioner in terms of the applicable provisions of law.

6. In the above background, this writ petition is misconceived, as a corollary to which, same shall stand dismissed in limine, alongwith the connected CM(s). This order, however, shall not preclude the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available to h