The Writ of Habeus Corpus denied to the Wife on the grounds that the Husband was not illegally detained: The High Court of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WPHC No. 121 Smt.Astha Pandey W o Amit Kumar Pandey Aged about 26 years R o Gouri Ganesh Vihar Mungeli Road Bilaspur District BilaspurPetitioner State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of Home Affairs Atal Nagar Naya Raipur Raipur District RaipurThe Station House Officer Civil Lines Bilaspur District BilaspurSmt.Laxmi Pandey W o Late Kishore Pandey Aged about 58 years Abhijeet Pandey S o Late Kishore Pandey Aged about 33 years Abhishek Pandey S o Late Kishore Pandey Aged about 31 years Respondent No.5 to 7 R o Shubham Vihar Beside Babji Residency Mungeli Road Bilaspur District BilaspurCause title taken from Case Information System Respondents Shri Arun Barik Advocate with Petitioner Smt.Astha Pandey For Respondents No. 1 to 4 Shri Siddharth Shukla Deputy Government Advocate For Respondents No.5 to 7 Shri Sandeep Shrivastava Advocate Hon ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami Chief Justice Hon ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge Order on Board Per Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge Shri Amit Kumar Pandey aged about 35 years has been produced before this Court though this Court has not directed for his production. His presence is marked. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking direction to respondents No.5 to 7 to free her husband from clutches of respondents No.5 to 7 stating inter alia that she has married Shri Amit Kumar Pandey on 19.5.2020 but respondents No.5 to 7 have illegally detained him without authority of law. When the matter is taken up today for consideration petitioner Smt.Astha Pandey in person would submit that Shri Amit Kumar Pandeyis her legally wedded husband and he has been detained unauthorizedly and without authority of law by respondents No.5 to 7 He is willing to stay with her and she is continuing his treatment with Dr.Prakash Narayan Shrivastava Psychiatrist at Raipur as he is unwell. She is willing to meet him and wants to stay with him. Therefore appropriate direction for releasing him from clutches of respondents No.5 to 7 be given. As noticed herein above since Shri Amit Kumar Pandey is present in the Court and on being asked he submits that though he is married with the petitioner on 19.5.2020 but on account of some objectionable behaviour made by the petitioner he is not ready and willing to stay with the petitioner and he wanted to stay with his parents. On being asked whether he is ready and willing to meet with his wife petitioner present in the Court he clearly states that he is not willing to meet his wife Smt.Astha Pandey. Shri Amit Kumar Pandey further submits that out of his own volition and because of objectionable behaviour of the petitioner he has gone to stay with his parents and as such he is staying with his parents out of his free will and there is no pressure or force applied by respondents No.5 to 7 to stay with them We have heard Shri Ajay Barik learned Counsel for the petitioner Also heard Shri Siddharth Dubey learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 Shri Sandeep Shrivastava learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 7 and petitioner Smt.Astha Pandey in person and Shri Amit Kumar Pandey in person. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and petitioner Smt.Astha Pandey in person and Shri Amit Kumar Pandey in person and considering that both are majors and further considering the nature of dispute between them we are of the considered opinion that it is not the case where Shri Amit Kumar Pandey has been illegally and unauthorizedly detained by respondents No.5 to 7 and we hereby close the present Habeas Corpus petition accordingly. However the petitioner is at liberty to avail other remedies available under the law for redressal of her grievances if any. It is also made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on rights of the parties. Sd Sd (Sanjay K. Agrawal Chief Justice Judge S Sd Sd Bablu

Summary: The writ of Habeus corpus is provided in the constitution in Article 226. The definition of habeas corpus has not been in the constitution but has been interpreted in zillions of different cases in India. The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you shall have the body”. Mr Amit Kumar Pandey has not been allowed for this writ as he had not been illegally and unauthorizedly detained provided in the case, Smt. Astha Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh &amp; Ors.[WPHC/13/2021] through the division bench led by Mr Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Mr Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The facts of case are Shri Amit Kumar Pandey has been produced before this Court though this Court has not directed for his production. The petitioner was seeking directions to the respondents to free her husband from the crutches of respondents stating enter earlier that she has married Shri Amit Kumar Pandey but the respondents have illegally detained him without the authority of law. The petitioner in person had submitted that Shri Amit Kumar Pandey was her legally wedded husband and has been detained unauthorisedly and without the authority of law by respondents specifically No. 5 to 7. The petitioner argued that the husband was willing to stay with her and she wanted to continue his treatment as he was unwell. But the petitioner wants to stay with him. Shri Amit Kumar Pandey was present in the court and he submitted that though he was married to the petitioner but due to some objectionable behaviour read by the petitioner he was not ready and willing to stay with the petitioner and wanted to stay with his parents. He clearly stated that he was not willing to meet his wife, the petitioner. He submitted that he is staying with his parents out of his free will and there is no pressure or force applied by the respondent No. 5 to 7 to stay with them as was submitted by the petitioner. The High Court decided that “We are of the considered opinion that it is not the case where Shri Amit Kumar Pandey has been illegally and unauthorizedly detained by respondents No.5 to 7 and we hereby close the present Habeas Corpus petition accordingly. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail other remedies available under the law for redressal of her grievances, if any. It is also made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on rights of the parties.” The court closed the writ petition accordingly.