CRWP No. 465 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No. 465 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.2.2011 Jagmeet Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Raj Karan Singh Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. JORA SINGH, J. Jagmeet Singh, preferred this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, for the release of his wife namely Pawanpreet Kaur, from the illegal custody of respondents No.4 to 8. That the petitioner and the detenue Pawanpreet Kaur, married with each other as per Sikh Rites. Marriage was solemnized on 21.12.2010. That it was a run away marriage. Parents of Pawanpreet Kaur, were against this marriage. Apprehending threat to their life and liberty petitioner and Pawanpreet Kaur, filed a complaint before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh. Pawanpreet Kaur and the petitioner co-habited as husband and wife. At present, Pawanpreet Kaur is pregnant. On 19.2.2011, respondents No. 4 to 8 along with several other persons came to the house of the petitioner. CRWP No. 465 of 2011 -2- Pawanpreet Kaur was forcibly taken away by respondents No.4 to 8. Respondents No.4 to 8 threatened to eliminate Pawanpreet Kaur. Complaint was sent to SHO, Police Station Kot Bhai i.e. respondent No.3, but no action. Petitioner also tried to contact Senior Superintendent of Police, Muktsar. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the file. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Pawanpreet Kaur, is major. She is the wife of the petitioner but at present she is in the illegal custody of respondents No.4 to 8. Alongwith the petition certificate of marriage issued by Gurudwara Guru Nanak Dev Ji, registered office Phase-6, Mohali and report of Dr. Indu Bansal, to the effect that Pawanpreet Kaur, is pregnant, are attached. Writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable when the Court is of the opinion that custody of the detenue with respondents is illegal and unlawful. As per marriage certificate detenue is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner but the question is whether custody of Pawanpreet Kaur, with respondents No. 4 to 8 is illegal and unlawful? Respondent No. 4 is the father of Pawanpreet Kaur. Respondents No. 5 to 8 are also related to the detenue. In para 4 of the petition, allegation of the petitioner is that he had approached SHO, Police Station, Kot Bhai but no action was taken. Copy of the complainant is not on the file to show as to whether petitioner had approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muktsar. Perusal of the file shows that earlier petitioner and Pawanpreet Kaur, had approached the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh. CRWP No. 465 of 2011 -3- Annexure P-1 is the copy of order dated 24.12.2010, vide which SSP, Muktsar, was directed to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and Pawanpreet Kaur. If it is presumed that Pawanpreet Kaur is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner then the remedy with the petitioner is to file petition for restitution of conjugal rights. In that petition Pawanpreet Kaur is to appear in Court and make statement whether she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner or not? Whether she wants to accompany the petitioner or not? Pawanpreet Kaur, is major as per petitioner and if direction is given to appear in Court and ultimately Pawanpreet Kaur appears in Court then whether direction can be given to her to accompany the petitioner. Forcibly she cannot be directed to accompany the petitioner. When there is efficacious remedy available to the petitioner i.e. to file petition for restitution of conjugal rights or divorce, then I am of the opinion that writ petition is not maintainable. Suppose writ petition is maintainable even then custody of Pawanpreet Kaur, with her parents cannot be illegal or unlawful. Petitioner is at liberty to file petition for restitution of conjugal rights if Pawanpreet Kaur, is his legally wedded wife or file complaint before the concerned police station. In case, complaint is filed then the same is to be disposed of by the SHO, within 15 days by passing a speaking order. For the reasons recorded above, instant petition without merits is dismissed. February 22, 2011 (JORA SINGH) rishu JUDGE