( 2026:HHC:37167 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.WP No. 15 of 2026 Decided on 31st August 2026 Deepanshu Dhiman …Petitioner Versus State of HP and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Rachna Kuthiala, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. G.S.Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the release of Smt. Mehak Sharma, wife of the petitioner from the custody of her parents. 2. The case is based on the facts of an inter-caste love marriage on 04.11.2025 in Santoshi Mata Mandir, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. -2- ( 2026:HHC:37167 ) 3. In the reply filed by the respondents No. 4 & 5, it has been stated that their daughter used to attend a computer course from her village Kutheran at a distance of approximately 3 Kms after completing her education of 10+2. It has been further stated that the petitioner had enticed their daughter and allegedly solemnized the marriage with her on 04.11.2025, in the absence of any nears and dears, friends and family members. Moreover, such nears and dears, friends and family members had never gone to the said Mandir and no such marriage had ever taken place. The replying respondents have also sought information under the RTI Act from the Mandir Administration to ascertain the fact as to whether any marriage had been performed at the said Mandir. However, vide letter dated 25.04.2026, they have been informed that marriage of the petitioner and their daughter was never performed at the said Mandir. In this regard, they have also appended Annexure R-4 and 5/A (Colly), i.e. copy of letter dated 25.04.2026 and copy of affidavit of the detenue dated 19.02.2026. 4. It is pertinent to mention that the petition herein was filed on 24.03.2026 and the affidavit apparently seem to have been prepared earlier and, therefore, there is a dispute as such, pertaining to the veracity of the marriage. The Kalandara under -3- ( 2026:HHC:37167 ) Sections 126 & 169 of the BNSS, entered into before the SDM, has also been placed on record, whereby not only the replying respondents, but the other siblings of the detenue have also stated regarding the threats held out to them by the petitioner. 5. In the rejoinder, the stand earlier taken in the petition has been reiterated and it has been denied that the story of the marriage has been concocted. A Pen drive pertaining to the video recording is also appended to the rejoinder, which statedly falsifies the case of the replying respondents that the detenue still wants to go with him. 6. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that since we had already interacted with the detenue on 01.04.2026, as such, and disputed issues have arisen, including the validity of the marriage and the fact that the detenue does not want to live with the petitioner. The said order dated 01.04.2026, reads as under; “In pursuance of the last order, detenu-Mehak Sharma has been produced by respondent No.3. We have interacted both with her and also with the petitioner. We have also interacted with respondents No.4 and 5, who are the parents of detenu-Mehak Sharma. Though, the parties -4- ( 2026:HHC:37167 ) apparently got married on 04.11.2025, but they continued residing separately. It is only in later point of time, when respondents No.4 and 5 came to know about the factum of the wedlock, there has been opposition. Detenu herself is now denying as such as to whether she wishes to accompany the petitioner, keeping in view the fact that he is not educated having no study, job and merely driving the pick-up/truck owned by other persons. Accordingly, let reply be filed by respondents No.4 and 5 by the next date of hearing. To come up on 14th May, 2026. Parties need not to come present on the date fixed.” 7. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Court, as such, to go into disputed facts. Even if the detenue has been married, this Court will not be able to enforce that she has to stay with her husband, as there are various legal remedies available to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Keeping in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition is not maintainable. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, it is open to the writ petitioner to seek recourse if so desired, in accordance with law in the Court of competent -5- ( 2026:HHC:37167 ) jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Chirag Bhanu Singh) Judge 31.08.2026 (Ritu)