Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60721 Court No. - 76 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 305 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Mansi Kasaudhan And Another Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajat Agarwal,Virpratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State- respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred with a prayer for issuance of 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 nos. 4 and 5- the brother and father of corpus. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner no.2. Their marriage was solemnized under the Special Marriage Act. It is further submitted that respondent nos. 4 and 5, being aggrieved by the said marriage, allegedly came at the house of petitioner no.2 on 24.03.2025 and forcibly took away petitioner no.1 (corpus) with them. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that remedy of habeas corpus is not maintainable, as it cannot be invoked in matters involving matrimonial discord or custody disputes arising out of failed marital relationships, unless there is clear evidence of illegal detention. 5. 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, particularly in matrimonial disputes where other legal remedies under civil and criminal law are open to the aggrieved party. 6. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any such unlawful detention or illegal restraint on the liberty of petitioner no.1. The corpus has been living with her parents that cannot be termed as illegal custody. 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 the above, and keeping in mind the alternative remedies available under the appropriate civil and criminal fora, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Shafique Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad