Habeas corpus petitions require foundational facts and supporting evidence, especially in sensitive matters such as marriage disputes.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The petitioner claiming himself husband of “X” (name of the girl has been concealed by the Court) has approached this Court in the present habeas corpus petition for a direction upon the respondents to produce “X” and for taking appropriate legal action against the father of “X” who is arrayed as respondent no.7 in the writ petition.

2. On 15th February 2022, Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate-General-II, had informed the Court that charge-sheet in Spl. (POCSO) Case No.172 of 2021 was already filed.

3. On that day, two weeks' time was granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to remove the defects.

4. Mr. Sachin Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate-General-II, has questioned maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has no locus to maintain this writ petition.

5. The petitioner has averred that on 25th October 2021 when “X” turned 18 years of age he married her at Sitla Mandir, Dhanbad, however, on the same day a First Information Report vide Barora PS Case No.50 of 2021 corresponding to Spl. (POCSO) Case No.172 of 2021 was lodged under sections 366A/120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 8 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner further states that before leaving her father's house “X” left a letter informing her parents that she was intending to marry the petitioner on her own will and without any influence. After their marriage, “X” gave a written report to Mahila Police Station, Dhanbad on 26th October 2021 and also sent a letter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad on 12th November 2021.

6. In the aforesaid background facts, Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that “X” was kept in illegal confinement by her father and under the circumstances she is not able to join the petitioner to perform her matrimonial duties and, therefore, to rescue his wife he was constrained to come to this Court.

7. In the first place the present habeas corpus petition is bereft of foundational facts besides that it is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner who claims himself husband of “X” does not aver in the writ petition how “X” was taken away from her so-called matrimonial home after their marriage on 25th October 2021. Three photographs have been filed by the petitioner to support the statement made in the writ petition that he got married on 25th October 2021. One of these photographs shows presence of two persons with the petitioner and “X” but it is not revealed who those persons are. On a Court's query, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that they are relatives of the petitioner. This writ petition, however, does not bring on record affidavits of those two persons. We further find that there is no whisper in the writ petition as to who performed the marriage of the petitioner with “X”. In our opinion, on such uncorroborated statements the petitioner claiming himself husband of “X” cannot maintain the present writ petition.

8. We further find that the other averments in the writ petition are also not supported by the documents particularly Annexure-5 at page-31 of the paper book that “X” is in illegal confinement and she is not permitted to leave the house to join the petitioner in her matrimonial home. The letter written by “X” vide Annexure-5 refers to a bond executed by the petitioner. In the said letter “X” has stated that she would abide by the wishes of her husband and would never do anything without permission of her husband. We further find that Annexure-5 has been filed to support the statements made in paragraph no.6(v) of the writ petition, which reads as under:

“(v) That it is humbly stated and submitted that “X” (superimposed by this Court) also wrote to the Respondent No.6 vide her letter dated 26.10.2021 informing the Respondent No.6 that even after being the legal and lawful wedded wife of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.7 had restrained her in his home against he