HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 388 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.362 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The petition was filed in the name of minor daughter and wife by Naman Kumar Tiwari, inter alia, with the submissions that his minor daughter and wife were in illegal detention of respondent No.3 Ramu Singh. Learned Additional Government Advocate produced instructions before the learned Single Judge, inter alia, indicating that the alleged detenue has given in writing to the Station House Officer that though she has married Naman Kumar Tiwari, on account of matrimonial disputes, she has gone with respondent No.3, based on which learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the allegations regarding illegal detention were not established and accordingly dismissed the petition. 3. In the present appeal, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, on 11.11.2025, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that before deciding the appeal, the detenue should have been summoned and her statement should have been recorded rather than disposing of the matter merely based on the written instructions and consequently, ordered for production of the detenue by the police before this Court. 4. Today, the alleged detenue has been produced before us. We have conferred with the detenue in chambers, wherein, she specifically Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Narayan Datt Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Kumari Nitya Naman Tiwari thru. her father Naman Kumar Tiwari and another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 others .....Respondent(s) indicated that she has gone with respondent No.3 as per her own free will and is not in illegal detention, as alleged. The minor child also was accompanying the alleged detenue, who also indicated that she was going to the school, whereafter, learned Government counsel as well as the counsel for the appellants along with Mr. Naman Kumar Tiwari were also called in chambers, wherein, the alleged detenue repeated the same aspect pertaining to living with respondent No.3 as per her own sweet will. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants attempted to make submissions pertaining to the custody of the child and that the respondent No.3 has no right to have custody of the minor child. 6. The plea sought to be raised apparently has no basis in the appeal besides the fact that the child is in custody of her mother. Learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petition, has specifically directed that the petitioners are free to pursue the remedy regarding the custody of the child before the appropriate Court, based on the parameters which are different from alleged illegal detention. 7. So far as the allegations pertaining to the criminal history of the respondent No.3 are concerned, learned Additional Government Counsel has produced a report indicating that as per the Online CCTNS Portal and records, there is no case registered against him, the report is taken on record. 8. In view of the above fact situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. There is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed, leaving it open for Mr. Naman Kumar Tiwari to take appropriate proceedings as observed by learned Single Judge, in accordance with law. November 18, 2025 Rakesh/Mukesh Pal SPLA No. 388 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench