JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Ghanshyam Yadav holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General appearing alongwith Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Staterespondents.

2. Pursuant to the rule nisi issued earlier, the petitioner no. 1 is present in Court who has been identified by Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel.

3. Learned A.G.A.I, on the basis of enquiry made from the petitioner no. 1, submits that she has stated that she is presently living with some of her relatives on account of a matrimonial discord. On a specific query, she has submitted that she is staying with her relatives on her own sweet will and without there being any threat or coercion. She has also stated that she does not wish to go back to her husband, i.e. petitioner no. 2, and that she desires to go back to her relatives from where she has come.

4. The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ and an extraordinary remedy. It is writ of right and not a writ of course and may be granted only on reasonable ground