HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 818 of 2025 Court No. - 85 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 no. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the legally wedded wife of petitioner no.2. Their marriage was solemnized on 9.2.2023 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. It is further submitted that respondent no. 4, being aggrieved by the said marriage, allegedly forcibly took away petitioner no.1 (corpus) with him. It is also alleged that petitioner no.2 was threatened with the implication in false case. Now the petitioner no.1 (wife of petitioner no.2) is in illegal custody of respondent no.4. 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. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Gautam, Rajesh Kumar Patel Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt Rubi Verma And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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. 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. September 10, 2025 A. Tripathi HABC No. 818 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad