A writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when the corpus is a major and has voluntarily entered into a live-in relationship, as such an act does not constitute illegal detention.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

Captioned writ petition is filed, seeking direction to the respondent to produce the corpus – respondent no.6 – Aartiben Hiteshbhai Vantiya before this Court.

2. Mr Umang S. Malkiya, learned advocate with Mr G.K.Parmar, learned advocate for the petitioner, have jointly submitted that the corpus, is illegally detained by the respondent no.4 and hence, the captioned writ petition. It is submitted that the corpus, is legally wedded wife of the petitioner which fact, is strengthened by the documents placed on record, namely, the wedding invitation card and the photographs. When the respondent no.6 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, any steps taken or documents executed subsequent thereto, would be invalid and have no sanctity in the eyes of law. It is submitted that the respondent no.4, if at all has entered into or executed any kind of documents, they would be null and void and it is to be construed that the respondent no.4, has illegally detained the corpus.

3. This Court, initially was not convinced with the submissions made, however, requested the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to take instructions.

4. Ms Asmita Patel, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, after taking instructions, has submitted that the corpus is 21 years of age and the respondent no.4 – Alpesh Mukeshbhai Parmar is 24 years of age. It is submitted that for the reasons best known to the respondent nos.4 and 6, they have eloped together and in furtherance thereof, an agreement of live-in relationship is executed on 01.11.2025. The contents thereof, clearly records that she had on her own left the house. Moreover, she has also declared that she has no relationship or she does not want to keep any relation with her parents and/or the petitioner.

5. It is further submitted that not only the agreement of live-in relationship, but there is also a joint application dated Nil addressed to the Police Inspector, Ramol police station, seeking police protection for the respondent no.4 and the parents of the respondent no.4. It is submitted that the documents which were made available during the course of the investigation, clearly suggest that there is no illegal detention of the corpus, so as to warrant interference in the captioned petition, seeking direction to the respondent to produce the corpus.

6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

7. In the captioned writ petition, the petitioner has made following prayers:-

“(A) The Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce respondent No. 6 Artiben W/o Hiteshbhai vantiya before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty.

(B) The Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to look into the case and consider the complaint made by the petitioner (Annexure-C) and direct the police authority to take necessary actions to free respondent No. 6 Artiben W/o Hiteshbhai vantiya from illegal and unlawful confinement of Respondent No.4 and Respondent No. 5.

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition the respondents may be directed to produce respondent No. 6 Artiben W/o Hiteshbhai vantiya before this Hon'ble Court.

(D) Such other and further relief's as and deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be granted.”

8. The petitioner is the husband of the corpus – respondent no.6 and from the documents available on the record, it appears that the marriage was solemnised between the petitioner and the corpus – respondent no.6 on 16.5.2022 as per hindu rites. Photographs ar