A writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable if the corpus is a major and there is no evidence of illegal detention or confinement, particularly when the evidence suggests the corpus left her home voluntarily.

ORAL ORDER

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

1. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking direction to the respondent to produce the corpus who happens to be the wife of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the corpus is missing since 13.03.2026 and till date her whereabout are not known.

2. Mr.Mandeep Singh Saluja, learned Advocate submitted that the marriage between the petitioner and the corpus was solemnized in the year 2024 and the corpus is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. On 13.03.2026, when the petitioner was on night duty, the corpus left the house. Upon reaching home in the morning on 14.03.2026, when the corpus was not found, an inquiry was made by the petitioner from his mother and other relatives and also from the nearby villagers. Despite several efforts and attempts being made, the corpus could not be found out. As a result, the petitioner had filed a Janvajog Status Report with the concerned police station on 06.04.2026 at around 3:30 p.m. It is submitted that even the application was preferred to the concerned police station despite which, no steps have been taken and there is sheer inaction on the part of the police authorities in tracing out the corpus. It is submitted that the petitioner is apprehending that the corpus may be illegally detained by the respondent no. 4 for oblique purpose and against her volition. It is submitted that therefore the captioned writ petition seeking direction to the respondent-State to produce the corpus.

3. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor while opposing the writ petition submitted that the corpus is aged 21 years and is major. It is true that she is married to the petitioner; however, it appears that she has left her matrimonial home on her own volition with the respondent no. 4 as they were emotionally attached to each other. It is submitted that in the past as well, the corpus had eloped with the respondent no. 4. Being a major and in absence of any allegation let alone any averments made in the petition, it cannot be said that the corpus is illegally detained or is in illegal confinement of the respondent no. 4. On the contrary, the stance taken by the petitioner suggests that the corpus has left the house willingly during the night hours. In the circumstances, the petition cannot be entertained.

4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.

5. The captioned writ petition is filed with the following main prayers:

“(B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order and be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 herein to procure the corpus of the petitioner’s wife and hand over the same to the present petitioner.

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to order that pending admission and/or final disposal of the petition, the respondents nos.2,3 and 4 herein be directed to produce the corpus of the petitioner’s wife viz. Parmar Komal Rameshbhai, in the interest of justice.”

6. The record reveals that on 16.03.2026 application was submitted to the Police Inspector, Nalsoravar Police Station. As per the averments made in the application, the corpus was allegedly having an affair with the respondent no. 4 and they are emotionally attached to each other. The application further suggests that respondent no. 4 and the corpus had eloped earlier as well and after the intervention of the relatives and the friends, the issue was settled. It is the case of the petitioner that his wife has left with respondent no.4 as much as, the whereabouts of neither the