Uttarakhand High Court Allows Married Lady To Stay With 'Friend', Declines Habeas Corpus Plea Moved By Husband

Update: 2023-06-20 05:16 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Uttarakhand High Court, while declining to issue the writ of habeas corpus in favour of a husband, has allowed his wife to stay with her friend with whom she is residing on her own free will.Marriage between the petitioner and the lady was solemnised in the year 2012 and two children (10-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter) were born out of the wedlock. In August 2022, the wife went...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Uttarakhand High Court, while declining to issue the writ of habeas corpus in favour of a husband, has allowed his wife to stay with her friend with whom she is residing on her own free will.

Marriage between the petitioner and the lady was solemnised in the year 2012 and two children (10-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter) were born out of the wedlock. In August 2022, the wife went to Faridabad where her parents lived. However, she never returned back to her matrimonial home thereafter.

The petitioner became apprehensive that his wife has been illegally detained by respondent no. 9, said to be a friend of his wife. Thus, he filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to get back his wife.

The Court, therefore, in the last date of hearing had ordered to ensure attendance of the wife before the Court and pursuant to such order, she was present. She conveyed to the Bench that the petitioner used to misbehave with her and hence, she is unwilling to join his company anymore. She also said that she is residing with the friend out of her own volition.

However, it was submitted for the petitioner that the aforesaid allegation against him is untrue and she left his company without any valid reason.

After hearing the parties, the Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit expressed its inability to grant any relief to the petitioner-husband and said,

“Be that as it may, since the lady has categorically stated that she is living with respondent no. 9 with her own free will, therefore, no further order can be passed.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Case No.: HABC No. 18 of 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Utt) 10

Order Dated: June 14, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Rakesh Joshi & Mr. Pankaj Joshi, Advocates

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View



Tags:    

Similar News