AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
By means of the present habeas corpus petition, the petitioner seeks directions for the production of his wife before the Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a poor daily wage labourer. He married Smt. Soniya Devi, but subsequently, the petitioner found that the corpus was talking to respondent No. 4 over the telephone. He counselled the corpus not to speak to anyone outside the family, in view of their family circumstances, and finally, on 29.08.2026, the corpus went missing, for which a report was lodged. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 is posting photographs and videos on social media in the company of the corpus. Therefore, the petition.
Learned State Counsel states that yesterday, a report was sought from the police, which revealed that, in fact, the corpus had left the company of the petitioner willingly due to harassment, torture, and domestic violence committed by the petitioner, and that the corpus had also sought protection from the Court in WPCRL No. 1923 of 2026. This Court perused the record of WPCRL No. 1923 of 2026. It categorically shows that the corpus, Soniya Devi, sought protection from the Court on various grounds, categorically stating that she is staying with respondent No. 4. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in para 7 of the judgment dated 18.09.2026 passed in WPCRL No. 1923 of 2026, Soniya Devi and another versus State of Uttarakhand and others, observed as follows:-
“7.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the validity of the relationship or the inter se rights of the parties, the Station House Officer, Police Station P.S. Bahadrabad, District Haridwar, is directed to examine the representation of the petitioners and assess the threat perception, if any, to their life and personal liberty. In the event any real and imminent threat is found to exist, the concerned police authorities shall take appropriate measures to ensure adequate protection to the petitioners strictly in accordance with law. The Station House Officer shall also ensure that no person, including the private respondents or any other individual, takes the law into his or her own hands or causes any unlawful interference, intimidation, harassment or coercion to the petitioners on account of their marriage.”
Be that as it may, the fact is clear that the corpus has willingly left the company of the petitioner and has joined the company of respondent No. 4. Therefore, at this stage, in the habeas corpus petition, no interference is needed, and the petition stands disposed of accordingly.
The habeas corpus petition is disposed of.