IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) No. &0^ /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^.^ ^^- ^0^?^^' \-'' a^^- y^.-: 's»,.'%S2Bas%5"*'J'i .ff;'' \^' Dr. Mritunjay Kumar, S/o. Rajendra Prasad Bhagat, aged about 30 years, R/o. Village & Post Adharpur, Police Station & District Samastipur (Bihar) VERSUS ^' 1] State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) f' • 2] Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 3] Superintendent of Police, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4] In-charge of Police Station, Mohannagar, District Durg (C.G.) /-' 5] In-charge of Police Station, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) <-" 6] Dr. Megha Ahuja, W/o. Dr. Mrityunjay Kumar, aged about 27 years, R7o. Kilapara, IChairagarh, Police Station & Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) /•At present R/o. Sadak No.3, Ashirwad Bhawan, First Floor, Deepak Nagar Ward, Ward No.23, Police Station Mohannagar, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) 7] Ramesh Kumar Ahuja, S/o. Sajan Das, aged about 53 years, R/o. Kilapara, Khairagarh, Police Station & Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) At present R/o. Sadak No.3, Ashirwad Bhawan, First Floor, Deepak Nagar Ward, Ward No.23, Police Station Mohannagar, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) 1 ^i'' ,.^y./.t'^^??.L-'*:;i^'i 'y !ay¥Cy\ '^. •; Ws:- 8] Sarika Ahuja, W/o. Ramesh Kumar Ahuja, aged about 47 years, R/o. Kilapara, Khairagarh, Police Station & Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) At present R/o. Sadak No.3, Ashirwad Bhawan, First Floor, Deepak Nagar Ward, Ward No.23, Police Station Mohannagar, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) 9] Laxmichand Ahuja @ Lakkhu Ahuja, S/o. Sajan Das, aged about 45 years, R/o. Kilapara, Police Station Khairagarh, Tahsil EUiairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 10] ' Khairaj Ahuja, S/o. Sajan Das, aged about 58 years, R/o. Kilapara, Police Station Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 11] Ashok Kumar Ahuja, S/o. Sajan Das, aged about 50 years, R/o. Kilapara, Police Station Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 12] Sachchumal @ Satyanand Ahuja S/o. Sajan Das, aged about 47 years, R/o. Kilapara, Police Station Khairagarh, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) <• 13] Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Durg Shahar, District Dyrg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) No. 801 of2010 Petitioner Dr. Mritunjay Kumar Versus Respondents State of Ch.hattisgarh & others WRIT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA DB: HonTile Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri & HonTile Shri Mamndra Mohan Shrivastava, JJ Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate for the appeUauts. Shri Suiuesh Bajaj, Govt. Advocate for fbie respondents No. 1 to 13. Respondent No.6 Dr. MeghaAhuja, appears in person. Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for fhe respoadents No.7 to 12. ORDER ( Passed on this 12<fa day ofMarch, 2010) Per Satish K. Asaihotri^ J. 1. By this petition filed under Ardcle 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia, the petitioner clauning to be the husband of fhe respondent No.6 seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the respondent No.6, aUeged wife offhe petitioner, atlegedly fi-om the iUegal custody offhe respondents No. 7 to 12. 2. The notice was issued on 25.2.2010 with a direction to the respondent No.6 to reiiiain present on 12.3.2010. When the matter was taken up for hearing the respondent No.6 was present iu person and ofher respondents N6. 7 to 12 were represented fhroueh fheir counsel. 3. On a queiy ia preseace of fhe petitioner, the respondent No.6 categoricaUy stated fhat the respondents No. 7 to 12 are her pareuts aad relations aad she is livmg wiUfuIly, without any ^^•p-..,,.-^-. 3^^. 6. ^ pressure, wifh fhem. She further stated that she waats to Hve with the respondents No. 7 to 12. In view ofthe above stated clear statement made by the respondent No.6 ia presence of the petitioner, nofhing survives for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the respondent No.6 fixim the custody offhe respondents No. 7 to 12. It was fairly submitted by leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner that the writ of Habeas Corpus niay not be issued evea if there has been a mam^e between fhe petitioner and fhe respondent No.6 as the scope of writ of Habeas Corpus is not to make a declaration with regard to aUeged marriage . For the icasons stated hereia above, wifhout goiag iuto fhe factum of fhe alleged inam^e between the petitioner and fhe rcspondent No.6, fhe writ petition is disiaissed as haviag becoiue infi-uctuous. No oider asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge Thalmr