Criminal Writ Petition No.2615 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Writ Petition No.2615 of 2011 Date of Decision: 6.12.2011 Saroj Yadav ... Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondents No. 1 to 3. None for respondents No.4 to 6. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for release of Sunil Kumar Yadav, husband of the petitioner, from the alleged illegal custody of respondents No.4 to 6. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was married with Sunil Kumar Yadav on 13.5.2006 at Saroon, Tehsil Phulpur, District Azamgarh (Uttar Pradesh). After six months of their marriage, they started residing at House No. 84-A, Badheri, Sector 41, Chandigarh. It is further stated that Sunil Kumar Yadav, husband of the petitioner, had Criminal Writ Petition No.2615 of 2011 2 left the house on 20.1.2009 and since then, according to the petitioner, his whereabouts are not known. She had also lodged a report No. 8 in the Daily Diary Register on 26.1.2006 at Police Post Palsora, Sector 56, Chandigarh. It is alleged by the petitioner that her husband has been unlawfully detained by respondents No.4 to 6. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, on instructions from Gurmeet Singh, Sub Inspector, has submitted that Sunil Kumar Yadav was aged about 26 years and he eloped with respondent No.4-Veena, who was a resident of Colony No.5, Sector 50, Chandigarh. It is stated that the preliminary investigation has shown that husband of the petitioner had developed love affair with respondent No.4 and both of them, after elopement, are not traceable. Mr. Nagpal further submits that Sunil Kumar Yadav is major and he himself has deserted the matrimonial house, therefore, as per the preliminary investigation, he has not been unlawfully detained by anyone. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, this Court is of the view that a writ of Habeas Corpus, as sought for, cannot be issued. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may avail of an alternative lawful remedy for redressal of her grievance before an appropriate forum. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 6, 2011 “DK”