HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 372 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record. The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:- "(i) ISSUE a writ,order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing to the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 to produce the petitioners/detenue through Opposite parties no. 4 to 6 before this Hon'ble Court and set them free at their liberty forthwith." Based upon the instructions received, copy of which is taken on record, the learned A.G.A. Sri Badrul Hasan stated that prior to filing of the present petition, presented in the registry of this Court on 06.10.2025 by Ritesh Kumar alias Phool Chandra, husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos. 2 and 3, and Smt. Sarojini Devi-petitioner no.1 and Ritesh Kumar alias Phool Chandra, on account of matrimonial dispute were called at Police Station-Sandana District-Sitapur i.e. on 18.09.2025 after receipt of complaint dated 15.09.2025 preferred by petitioner no.1against her husband namely Ritesh Kumar alias Phool Chandra and at the said police station a settlement was signed by petitioner no.1 and her husband Ritesh Kumar alias Phool Chandra, according to which petitioner no.1 alongwith minors (petitioner nos. 2 and 3) is living with one Sharda s/o Rama alias Ramu on her own volition and this settlement further indicates that the custody of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 would be handed over to Ritesh Kumar alias Phool Chandra in terms of the order of competent court of jurisdiction and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vimlesh Kumar Kashyap, Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt. Sarojni Devi Thru. Her Husband Sri Ritesh Kumar @ Phool Chandra And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) concealing these facts of the case, the present petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed and therefore the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs. On being confronted, taking note of the aforesaid, the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the present application and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail remedy as available under law including Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. To the aforesaid prayer, learned AGA has no objection. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. October 8, 2025 Jyoti/- HABC No. 372 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench