The extraordinary jurisdiction of habeas corpus is not intended to resolve matrimonial disputes or determine marriage validity. It should not be used where alternative legal remedies exist or to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact regarding the alleged confinement of an adult by their relatives.

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a prerogative writ of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner, claiming to be the husband of the corpus. It is stated, inter alia, that the corpus is the lawfully wedded wife of the petitioner and has been illegally detained by her father, i.e., respondent No. 5-Ramesh Chand Malav.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner and the corpus-Smt. Seema Malav, are both majors. The petitioner alleges that he and the corpus have solemnized their marriage, in support of which he has produced a marriage certificate dated 26.04.2026. It has been further pleaded that the corpus has been illegally detained by respondents No. 5 to 9 (family members of the corpus). Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the State authorities to produce the corpus-Smt. Seema Malav, before this Court.

3. While pressing the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier invoked the criminal writ jurisdiction of this Court at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, while claiming to be in a live-in relationship with the corpus, in the matter of Seema Malav & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.¹1 S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1820/2026, wherein vide order dated 24.04.2026, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Commissioner of Police and the Superintendent of Police by submitting a representation detailing his grievances. Accordingly, the petitioner now seeks appropriate directions for the production of the corpus-Smt. Seema Malav.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record.

5. The petitioner has asserted that the petitioner and the corpus have solemnized their marriage, relying upon a marriage certificate dated 26.04.2026 in support thereof. The petitioner has further asserted that the corpus, who is a major, has been illegally detained by her parents.

6. No evidence or material has been placed on record by the petitioner to show or satisfy this Court that the corpus is staying with her parents against her wishes or has been illegally detained. Further, since the corpus is presently residing with her parents, it cannot be said that she has been illegally detained against her wishes.

7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to investigate intricate questions of fact, which are matters best left for a competent civil, criminal, or family court to scrutinize on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties.

8. It is trite law that a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued as a matter of course at the instance of a husband against the parents or other close relatives of the wife. This extraordinary remedy should be confined to exceptional cases.

9. A bare perusal of the facts, as stated herein, reflects that these proceedings have been misused by the petitioner for securing a relief which is otherwise available under other provisions of law. The petitioner could well have filed an application for the restitution of conjugal rights or any other remedy including initiating a proceeding under Section 100 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Sur