Writ petitions addressing marriage and custody disputes must involve undisputed facts and can't bypass established remedies.

1. Through the medium of this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India read with S.103 of the Constitution of J. and K., petitioner Sandeep Singh, who claims to be permanent resident of State of J. and K. has sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of appropriate writ to ensure the release of pro forma respondent namely Rachita from the illegal custody of Respondents 4 and 5. It is inter alia maintained in the petition that the petitioner and the pro forma respondent, Rachita had a love affair, this love affair after attaining their age of majority materialised in their marriage which was solemnised in accordance to Hindu rites and ceremonies on 20-2-2002 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Akhnoor. That after the solemnization of the said marriage, the parties persuaded their parents to accept them as husband and wife instead the family members of the pro forma respondent - Rachita confined her in their house and are planning to get her married with the person not of her choice outside the State of J. and K. That this action of Respondents 4 and 5, who happened to be the parents of the pro forma respondent, compelled her to file a writ petition which came to be registered as OWP No. 866/2002 praying therein for declaration that she is free to stay at a place with the person of her choice. This writ petition came to be decided on 27-9-2002. That after the disposal of the said writ petition, said pro forma respondent enjoyed her conjugal relations with the petitioner at Sainik Colony, Jammu. That on 1st of November, 2002, her parents approached the petitioner to send her with them in order to enable them to observe their local customs to the solemnization of their marriage and also to celebrate Diwali and Bai Duj with the promise that she will be sent back to him on 15-11-2002. That Respondents 4 and 5 did not keep their promise of sending her back to him instead took her to unknown destination and confined her illegally; that the pro forma respondent being legally wedded wife of the petitioner has every right to stay with him and the State Authorities are under legal obligation to protect her life and liberty and to ensure her release.

2. On the presentation of this petition, this Court came to issue notice to the to respondents presumably calling them upon to show cause as to why this writ petition may not be admitted to hearing. Pursuant to it, the respondents came to file their objections which are on the file of this Court. The petitioner by virtue of order dated 27-11-2002 made a request for the deletion of Respondent 6 from the array of respondents and this request came to be accepted; the Respondents 4 and 5 who happen to be the parents of Rachita have in their written objections assailed maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that disputed question of facts are raised in the writ petition that the OWP No. 866/2002 was filed by Rachita under threat and pressure which came to be disposed of by this Court in which said Rachita had filed an application for withdrawal accompanied by an affidavit and in this application, she has submitted that she is living with her parents out of her free will; that as per Court order passed in OWP No. 866/2002 which is Anx - B to the writ petition, it is ordered that if any action is to be taken against Rachita and Sandeep Singh then they shall be given notice of 15 days; that no marriage was ever performed between the petitioner and the pro forma respondent; that it appears the writ petition has been filed to harass the said Respondents 4 and 5. The said respondents have in short denied the factum of marriage in between the petitioner and their daught