:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 725 OF 2008 Samsuddin Abdul Salam ..Petitioner Vs. Rajesh Singh & ors. ..Respondents Mr. Mohammed Hussain Ansari for petitioner. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, APP for State. Mr. Rajesh Singh for respondent nos.1 to 5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. MARLAPALLE & J. H. BHATIA,JJ. Dated: Dated: Dated: June 17, 2008. June 17, 2008. June 17, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr.Mohammed Hussain Ansari the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claims that his marriage with Ms.Priyanka daughter of Brijkishor Singh was performed as per the Islamic customs on 16/1/2008 and he has placed on record certificate of registration of marriage under the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998. He also states that Ms. Priyanka Singh had embraced Islam and after Nikah joint declaration on affidavit was sworn by her. He claims that his wife has been kept by Priyanka’s father in their custody illegally with the assistance :2: of other members of the family and relations. He, therefore, prays for a writ of habeas corpus to take his wife from the custody of her parents and restore her to his custody so as to resume the matrimonial relationship. 2. As per the directions issued by this court, Priyanka with her father Shri Brijkishor Singh is present before us and to assess her version, we have talked to her in-camera and thereafter we have talked to the petitioner in her presence. 3. The factum of marriage is prima facie supported by the registration certificate. The petitioner has brought on record the statements recorded by the police during the course of investigation on his complaint. However, admittedly, even on the date of the alleged marriage Priyanka was major (date of birth 5/12/1988). She stated before us that she never stayed with the petitioner as his wife at any time. Even after the alleged marriage she has been staying with her parents all along by her own free will. She further stated that she has been deceived and she has no intention to join the company :3: of the petitioner. Even the petitioner admits that after the marriage between the parties they did not live together at any time. 4. In these obtaining circumstances, there is no material before us to hold that Ms. Priyanka has been illegally detained or kept in the custody of her parents and, therefore, there is no case to entertain a petition praying for a writ of habeas corpus. If the petitioner desires that Priyanka should join him as his wife and restore the matrimonial relationship, his remedy may lie somewhere else and not by way of a writ petition praying for writ of habeas corpus. 5. Hence, the petition is rejected and this order will not come in the way of the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings before any subordinate court. No costs. (J.H. (J.H. (J.H. Bhatia, J.) Bhatia, J.) Bhatia, J.) (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)