- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. Neha And Another v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 1028 of 2026 Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the corpus, Smt. Neha, is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, Preet Nagar, and that their marriage was solemnized on 04.07.2025. It is contended that since 06.07.2026, the corpus has been under the illegal detention of private respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are her mother and brother. It is further submitted that a complaint dated 06.07.2026 was lodged before the police authorities of District Ghaziabad seeking recovery of the corpus, however, despite the said complaint, no effective action has been taken by the authorities. On these grounds, it is prayed that an appropriate writ of habeas corpus be issued directing production of the corpus before this Court.
Per contra, learned AGA, on the basis of instructions received from the concerned police authorities, submits that pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, the statement of the corpus was recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In her statement, the corpus categorically stated that the alleged marriage with the petitioner had been procured by fraud and misrepresentation and that she had approached the office of the Marriage Registrar for cancellation of the said marriage. She unequivocally asserted that she had been deceived by the petitioner and denied the existence of any valid marital relationship. From the instructions placed before this Court, it is further evident that, on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, Case Crime No.354 of 2025, dated 09.12.2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(2), 127(2) BNS was registered at Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, against the private respondents and Versus
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Tripathi-I
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Smt. Neha And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
1
their family members. However, the petitioner has deliberately omitted and concealed this material fact while filing the present writ petition. It is also evident from the statement of the corpus that she has categorically stated that she did not voluntarily solemnize any marriage with the petitioner and that the alleged marriage was procured by fraud and misrepresentation. She has further unequivocally stated that she is not under the illegal detention or unlawful confinement of any person and is residing according to her own free will.
It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only where a person is shown to be under illegal or unlawful detention. In the present case, the corpus herself has categorically denied any illegal detention and has expressed her desire to reside independently. Moreover, the petitioner has approached this Court without disclosing material facts, thereby suppressing facts having a direct bearing on the adjudication of the present petition. A litigant who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is under an obligation to approach the Court with clean hands and make a full and fair disclosure of all material facts.
In view of the categorical statement of the corpus, the absence of any material indicating illegal detention, and the suppression of material facts by the petitioner, no ground for exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court is made out.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
July 24, 2026
Himanshu HABC No. 1028 of 2026
2
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
2
Alert