Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ
Anandhakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
City Police Commissioner – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 759 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Siju, Anjana Kannath, Safna P.S.
For the Respondents: Suneesh Kumar R., Neerada S. A., Rajaneesh S.R., Tony Vasanth, Rijisha, K. A. Anas
A writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be issued if the court finds that the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus for the production of his alleged detenue wife. He alleged illegal confinement by the private respondents. The Court interacted with the parties to ascertain the alleged detenue's will and found she was not in illegal confinement. The issue before the court was whether the writ of habeas corpus could be issued in the absence of evidence of illegal detention. The Court reasoned that its extraordinary jurisdiction necessitates proof of illegal confinement for such a writ to be issued, confirming that voluntary residence with parents does not constitute illegal detention. The writ petition was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of writ petition and status of the alleged detenue. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. establishing the requirement of illegal confinement for habeas corpus issuance. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of habeas corpus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to produce the corpus of the alleged detenue, Vysakhi K.S., before this Court and set her at liberty. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the detenue (wife of the petitioner) is in illegal custody of respondents 4 and 5, who are her parents, and the 6th respondent, who is her relative.
2. On 08.05.2026, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Public Prosecutor took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice was ordered to respondents 4 and 5 by special messenger.
3. On 15.05.2026, when this writ petition came up for consideration, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Muralee Krishna S., J.] was a party, passed the following order;
“In this matter, there is an element of settlement involved since the parties are married, though the alleged detenue would submit that she has been residing with her parents since she is not ready to live with the petitioner.
Post on 20.05.2026 to ascertain the possibility of mediation, if any.
4. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the petitioner, the alleged detenue and respondents 4 and 5, who are her parents, are personally present in Court. We have interacted with the petitioner, the alleged detenue and her parents. The alleged detenue has stated that she is not under illegal confinement of respondents 4 to 6.
5. This Court, in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can issue a writ of habeas corpus only if it is shown that the alleged detenue is under illegal confinement.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegal confinement of the alleged detenue by respondents 4 to 6.
The writ petition fails on the aforesaid ground, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
