JUDGMENT
K.C. Sharma, J.
1. This is a petition of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner-Sahab Singh alleging that the detenu Smt. Manju daughter of Shri Mansingh resident of Dhaval, Fatehpur Sikri, District Agra (U.P.), who is his legally married wife, was abducted by respondent No. 4- Suresh S/o Mangi Lal. He has alleged that his wife is in the illegal detention of respondent No. 4 Suresh as she had been taken away forcibly by respondent No. 4.
2. A show cause notice was issued to the respondents on the aforesaid averment after which the respondent No. 4 Suresh appeared through his Advocate and the Government Advocate also represented the respondent-State as also the Superintendent of Police and SHO, Bharatpur.
3. The alleged detenu thereafter has been produced before this Court today and we questioned her in open Court as to whether she had been taken away forcibly by the respondent No. 4 Suresh. She categorically denied this part of the allegation levelled by the petitioner and she stated that she is aged 20 years and although she was married with the petitioner-Sahab Singh, this was done forcibly by her father Shri Man Singh after receiving some amount from the petitioner-Sahab Singh. She stated -that she had a liking for the respondent No. 4 even before her marriage and she was willing to marry Suresh and not Sahab Singh and as she was married to Sahab Singh, she had no way out than to elope with respondent No. 4 Suresh. She thus categorically contradicted the submission of the petitioner’s advocate by stating that she is living willingly with respondent No. 4 Suresh and as she is a major, she should be allowed to live with respondent No. 4 Suresh.
From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the allegation of the petitioner that she is in illegal detention of respondent No. 4 Suresh is not correct and the petitioner although may have a cause to approach the Family Court for decree of divorce as the alleged detenu has left him and is living with another man-respondent No. 4 Suresh, this is certainly not a case for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus since the basis ingredient of illegal detention of the detenu is missing in this habeas corpus petition. In our view, the petitioner in fact has misused this forum as it can be safely inferred that the petitioner was already aware that his wife is not interested in living with the petitioner. In that event, he could have approached the Family Court for the appropriate legal remedy, since a writ of habeas corpus cannot be held maintainable when the so called detenu is living willingly with respondent No. 4 Suresh. However, the writ petition having been entertained earlier as the show cause notice was issued and the lady Smt. Manju having been recovered who is a major aged 20 years, we see no reason as to why she should be compelled to live with the petitioner. As already stated hereinabove, the remedy for the petitioner lies elsewhere if he is aggrieved of the fact that she has deserted the petitioner.
4. It is high time for the petitioner who is deserted husband as also the others who may be similarly placed, to realise that a lady who is a major cannot be treated as a chattel so as to drive her and compel her to live with the person with whom she is not willing to live by issuing a writ of habeas corpus. If a particular lady, like the alleged detenu herein, leaves her husband, the same can result into the consequence of giving rise to a matrimonial dispute which can be entertained by the Family Court but a habeas corpus petition in such circumstance is surely not the legal remedy and hence cannot be encouraged. Time and again we have laid down that the habeas corpus petition, even if it is filed by an unmarried boy to unite with her girl friend, the same cannot be done by filing a writ of habeas corpus unless she is under forcible detention of someone including her close relatives. But we come across a sorry state of affairs when we notice that the girls are sought to be compelled to live with a particular man by adopting the remedy of a writ of habeas corpus petition with oblique motive and although at times it may be true that the parents also pressurise their daughter to marry someone against her wishes and against her conscience, a writ of habeas corpus cannot be entertained when the girl is a major as the ingredient of forcible detention is a pre-condition for entertaining a writ of habeas corpus. Once the girl is a major, it is her wish which shall have to be allowed to prevail under all circumstance and that cannot be allowed to be suppressed by issuing a writ of habeas corpus compelling her to act according to the wishes of others.
5. Bearing this in mind, we deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the so-called detenu Smt. Manju to live with respondent No. 4 Suresh with whom she wishes to live. As she has been produced in this Court with the help of the police, we direct the police authorities, who are present in this Court, to reach her safely to respondent No. 4 Shri Suresh S/o Mangi Lal and thereafter she would be free to live with him. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, as the detenu is the legally married wife of the petitioner, he would be free to take recourse to any other alternative remedy that may be available to him under the law. But in so far as this habeas corpus petition is concerned, the same is dismissed under the aforesaid circumstance.