A writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 is not maintainable absent proof of illegal confinement, and disputes regarding the validity of a marriage are outside the scope of such extraordinary jurisdiction.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this W.P.(Crl.), invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce the body of the alleged detenue, namely, Sruthi V.P., aged 23 years, before this Court and set her at liberty. In the writ petition, it is alleged that she is under illegal confinement of the 3^rd respondent. The document marked as Ext.P2 is a copy of the certificate of marriage dated 17.05.2026 issued by the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), Thillankery Grama Panchayat, issued under Rule 11(1) of the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, wherein it is certified that the information stated therein has been taken from the Register of Marriages (Common) maintained in Form No.III in the office of the Local Registrar. As per the said information, the marriage between the 3^rd respondent and the alleged detenue was conducted on 30.04.2026 at Poonthalodu Sree Muthappan Madappura, Thillankery Village, Iritty Taluk.

2. On 26.05.2026, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Public Prosecutor took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to the 3^rd respondent, returnable by 29.05.2026. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, this Court passed an interim order directing the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer to ensure the presence of the alleged detenue in Court today (29.05.2026) at 10.15 a.m.

3. Today, when this writ petition is taken up for consideration, the 3^rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. The petitioner, the alleged detenue and the 3^rd respondent are personally present in Court. We have interacted with the petitioner and also the alleged detenue. The petitioner mother was permitted to interact with her daughter, the alleged detenue.

4. The alleged detenue has stated that she is not under illegal confinement of the 3^rd respondent, and that her marriage with the 3^rd respondent was conducted on 30.04.2026 at Poonthalodu Sree Muthappan Madappura, Poothalodu, and that she wants to reside with the 3^rd respondent.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, based on the report dated 28.05.2026 of the 2^nd respondent Station House Officer, enclosing therewith a copy of the statement of the alleged detenue, recorded by a Senior Civil Police Officer of Peringome Police Station, would submit that as per the statement of the alleged detenue, she is not under illegal confinement of the 3^rd respondent and that, she wants to reside with the 3^rd respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out the specific ground raised in the writ petition that as per Ext.P2 certificate of marriage, the alleged marriage was conducted in a Hindu temple, by following Hindu rites. Since the marriage is admittedly an inter-religious marriage, with one of the parties being a Muslim, who has not been converted to Hinduism prior to the alleged marriage, the marriage is prima facie devoid of legal validity and void ab initio.

7. 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.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegal confinement of the alleged detenue by the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, the question as to whether the alleged detenue wants to reside with the 3^rd respondent or with her parents requires no consideration in this writ petition. Similarly, the validity of the marriage conducted between the 3^rd respondent and the alleged detenue on 30.04.2026, as evid