Court No. - 50
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 3112 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pushpa Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Nath Tiwari,Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the corpus Smt. Pushpa Devi is legally wedded wife of petitioner no.2 and their marriage was solemnized on 18.11.2013; that a son was born out of the wedlock in May, 2015, after which the corpus left for maika for attending the marriage of his brother Satish Kumar along with all valuables and did not return, so the petitioner no.2 served a legal notice on corpus on 25.7.2016 and since the notice was not complied with, he filed matrimonial petition No.956 of 2016 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad under section 9 Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights; that the corpus is not appearing even in the proceedings of petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad; that respondent no.4 who is father of corpus given a letter of consent on 7.7.2017 that he will send the corpus within 10 days; that in the circumstances a writ for habeas corpus be issued commanding respondent to produce the corpus.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that there is some matrimonial dispute due to which the wife of petitioner no.2 is forced to live in her maika and the petitioner no.2 has filed matrimonial petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad as per Annexure No.2; that the petitioner no.2 is pursuing the efficacious remedy before the appropriate forum and in the circumstances, the corpus may not be considered to be unlawful custody of respondent no.4, as she is major and willingly living at her maika, as also stated by the petitioner no.2 in this petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that the petition for habeas corpus is misconceived. Since the petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights filed by petitioner no.2 against the corpus is pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad and the corpus is residing in her maternal house with her father, she may not be considered to be in illegal custody of her father respondent no.4. The petition for habeas corpus is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
The present petition is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Tamang