Sachin Rajak vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—They are heard.

This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that respondent No. 4/corpus is the married wife of the petitioner and she is in wrongful custody of respondent No. 5 (father of the corpus).

Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the corpus be produced before this Court to ascertain whether she wants to live with the petitioner.

The prayer is opposed by the other side by contending that the corpus preferred a suit which was registered as Case No. 15A/13 which was decided on 11/10/2013, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 is already dissolved and thereafter the corpus has solemnized another marriage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said judgment is an ex parte judgment and, therefore, the corpus be directed to be produced before this Court.

I do not see any merit in the said submission. Against the judgment aforesaid, the petitioner has a remedy elsewhere. Validity of the judgment dated 11/10/2013 cannot be seen/examined in this habeas corpus petition. On the face of the judgment, it is clear that the corpus filed the said suit for dissolution of the marriage and succeeded. Thereafter, as informed, she has solemnised another marriage. Considering the aforesaid, I am unable to hold that the corpus is in wrongful confinement of respondent No. 5.

This habeas corpus petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed.