A writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 cannot be used to determine the validity of a disputed marriage or to resolve matrimonial conflicts, as such adjudication belongs exclusively to the Family Court. Petitioner must establish prima facie evidence of illegal confinement to succeed.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to trace Tejas Satish Joshi, the alleged detenue, and produce her before this Court. The petitioner has also sought for an appropriate direction to the 4^th respondent, who is the mother of the alleged detenue, to disclose the whereabouts of the detenue and direct an effective and time bound investigation into her disappearance.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, on

08.03.2026, the alleged detenue travelled to her parental home at Nagpur for a personal visit and returned to Kochi on 13.03.2026. On the same day, during the absence of the petitioner, she left the matrimonial home at about 1.30 p.m., taking along all her personal belongings.

3. On 08.04.2026, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain instructions by 10.04.2026, as regards the fate of Ext.P4 complaint filed by the petitioner before Ernakulam Town South Police Station.

On 10.04.2026, the learned Public Prosecutor sought further time to get instructions.

4. On 17.04.2026, when the writ petition came up for consideration before the Vacation Bench, the following order was passed;

“The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner and the daughter of the 4^th respondent were earlier married to other persons and after dissolution of their earlier marriage, they were living together as husband and wife though there is nothing to indicate that their marriage has been solemnized or registered in accordance with the law. It is submitted that the daughter of the 4^th respondent was contacted and that she has informed the Police that she has left the company of the petitioner voluntarily.

In such circumstances, issue notice before admission by speed post to the 4^th respondent. The learned Government Pleader accepts notice for respondents 1 to

3.” (underline supplied)

5. Notice issued to the 4^th respondent returned with an enforcement ‘refused’.

6. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the alleged detenue is not prepared to come and live with the petitioner, the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue may be declared as void.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on written instructions from the 3^rd respondent Station House Officer, Ernakulam Town South Police Station would submit that the alleged detenue is staying with her mother, the 4^th respondent herein, on her free will, and therefore, no further action was taken by the Police on Ext.P4 complaint made by the petitioner. The marriage has not been legally registered.

8. The averment made in paragraph 1 of the statement of facts of the writ petition is that the petitioner is the legally wedded husband of the alleged detenue by name Tejas Satish Joshi. In order to show that the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue was solemnized on 03.12.2024 at Nagpur, Ext.P2 series of photographs and Ext.P3 wedding invitation card are placed on record.

9. As noticed in the order dated 17.04.2026, there is nothing to indicate that the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue has been solemnized or registered in accordance with law. As submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, the marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue is not legally registered. The question as to whether there is a legal and valid marriage between the petitioner and the alleged detenue is squarely outside the purview of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of