Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63726 Court No. - 76 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 97 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Sarita Chauhan And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kukmar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Pandey,G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to produce petitioner no.1 (corpus) before this Court and to set her at liberty from the alleged illegal custody of respondent no.4. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by this Court, the corpus, Smt. Sarita Chauhan, along with petitioner No.2 and respondent no.4. 4. Upon interaction with the corpus and on examination of the concerned parties, it has emerged that petitioner No.1 was a minor at the time of the alleged solemnization of marriage. It is further revealed that petitioner no.2 is the brother-in-law of the son of respondent no.4. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the corpus recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has categorically stated that she is aged about 17 years. She further deposed that on 18.05.2024, she had gone to her maternal aunt's (Bua's) house, and although she is acquainted with petitioner No.2, but she had never met him prior to the said incident. She has expressed her unequivocal desire to return to and reside with her parents. 5. In view of the aforesaid statement and after due consideration of the facts placed before this Court, the custody of petitioner No.1 stands restored to respondent No.4. Petitioner No.2 has also given an undertaking before this Court not to interfere with the peaceful living of the corpus henceforth. 6. The writ of habeas corpus is an extraordinary and prerogative remedy intended to provide immediate relief in cases of illegal or unlawful detention. It is not a remedy available as a matter of course. In the present case, the corpus herself has stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she want to reside with respondent no.4-father of petitioner no.1 (corpus). Therefore, in absence of prima facie evidence of coercion or confinement, no case is made out for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 A. Tripathi Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad