1 2026:CGHC:18338-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPHC No. 11 of 2026 1 - Maheshwar Behra S/o Lambodar Behra Aged About 24 Years R/o Post Line, Lnt, Kansbahal, Rourkela, District Sundargarh, Odisha ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur, Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Station House Officer/ In-Charge Fafadih Police Station, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Collector Raipur Office Of The Collector At Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Probation Officer Nari Niketan, Raipur, Nari Niketan, Shanjar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Director Women And Child Development Department, Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Yukti Patel D/o Dilip Patel Aged About 22 Years R/o Baruipara, Jojmaya Steel And Furniture, Near Railway Station Baruipara, Kolkata, West Bengal (Wife Of The Petitioner) Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.04.22 18:12:47 +0530 2 10 - Dilip Patel R/o Baruipara, Jojmaya Steel And Furniture, Near Railway Station Baruipara, Kolkata, West Bengal (Father-In-Law Of The Petitioner) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amishan Hussain, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 22/04/2026 1. Heard Mr. Amishan Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the Respondent/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased allow the present writ petition and may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to forthwith produce the Petitioner's wife (i.e. Respondent no. 9) before this Hon'ble Court and upon such production, be pleased to set her at liberty from any form of illegal, unlawfulor involuntary confinement, including her continued stay at Nari Niketan, Raipur, C.G. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or 3 direction, including a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to ensure that the Petitioner's wife (i.e. Respondent no. 9) is not detained, confined or restrained against her free will at Nari Niketan or at any other place. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct that no coercive steps, pressure, intimidation or interference be caused by the Petitioner's wife (i.e. Respondent no. 9) parents, relatives or any third party in respect of the Respondent no. 9's decision to reside with the Petitioner or to exercise her free choice of marriage and companionship. 4] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records and proceedings pertaining to the Respondent no. 9's detention and stay at Nari Niketan, Raipur, and after examining the legality thereof, be pleased to quash any action or decision which has resulted in her illegal or involuntary confinement. 5] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Direct initiation of appropriate inquiry and action against the erring officials, including police authorities, for their failure to provide timely and effective protection to the petitioner despite her complaints and distress calls. 6] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to grant any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner’s wife, Yukti Patel, a 22-year-old major, who is competent to make her 4 own decisions. The petitioner and his wife developed a relationship in 2024 which culminated in a voluntary marriage solemnized on 24 November 2025, at Dakshineswar Kali Mandir according to Hindu rites, despite strong opposition from her family on account of caste differences. In February 2026, upon discovering her pregnancy, the wife informed her parents, who allegedly reacted with hostility and coerced her into undergoing an abortion against her will, causing her severe physical and emotional trauma. Thereafter, she was subjected to continuous harassment, threats, and pressure to sever ties with the petitioner. In April 2026, under false pretenses, her parents took her to Raipur, Chhattisgarh, where she was allegedly confined in a locked room, deprived of communication, and forced to consider marriage within her caste. Despite seeking help through police helplines, effective protection was initially denied, and she was allegedly assaulted and threatened with harm to the petitioner’s life by caste members. Following subsequent intervention, she was recovered by the police and placed in Nari Niketan, Raipur; however, even there, she continues to face intimidation and is allegedly being wrongfully restrained from leaving, despite clearly expressing her desire to live with the petitioner and her fear for her safety from her family. The petitioner submits that the continued confinement, coercion, and failure of authorities to provide adequate protection have resulted in a grave violation of her fundamental rights, and in the absence of any efficacious 5 alternative remedy, seeks immediate intervention of this Court for her release and protection. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s wife is a major about 22 years and fully competent to decide her marriage, residence, and life choices. Her continued confinement at Nari Niketan, Raipur is not voluntary but a result of coercion and pressure, despite her clear wish to live with the petitioner, thereby amounting to illegal restraint and violation of her fundamental rights to dignity and autonomy. Her lawful marriage with the petitioner, solemnized between consenting adults, cannot be overridden by family or caste opposition. It is further submitted that the alleged abortion was not based on free consent but was induced through coercion, resulting in physical and mental trauma. Her confinement, isolation, and threats by family and caste members create a serious apprehension to her life and liberty. The continued custody in Nari Niketan is unlawful as it amounts to detention rather than protection, warranting urgent intervention of this Court for her immediate release and safeguarding her liberty. 5. On a pointed query by learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any FIR has been registered against the petitioner at the instance of the father of the corpus or any member of her family for any alleged offence, it is submitted that no such FIR has been registered against the petitioner. The absence of any criminal 6 complaint or FIR further indicates that no allegations have been formally made against the petitioner by the family of the corpus, thereby supporting the petitioner’s case that the continued restriction on the liberty of the corpus is not based on any criminal proceedings or lawful process. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent–State submits that on a specific query by this Court as to under which order the victim has been kept at the Sakhi Centre, it is clarified that there is no judicial or detention order in this regard. The police had only referred the corpus initially for admission at Nari Niketan and thereafter at the Sakhi Centre (One Stop Centre), Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. purely as a protective and welfare measure in view of her vulnerable condition. 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s wife was found in a sensitive situation and was accordingly placed in Nari Niketan, Raipur for her safety and protection, and subsequently shifted to the Sakhi Centre (One Stop Centre), Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. for continued care. The State authorities acted promptly upon receiving information, rescued her, recorded her statement in accordance with due procedure, and ensured her protection in a statutory shelter home. Her stay in these institutions is purely protective in nature and subject to continuous assessment of her free and uninfluenced will. Allegations of coercion, threats, and forced abortion are denied 7 and are matters of investigation. It is submitted that the State has acted bona fide in discharge of its constitutional obligation to protect life and liberty, and therefore no interference is warranted at this stage. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that respondent No.9, Yukti Patel, is a major aged about 22 years and is fully competent to make her own decisions regarding her marriage, residence, and personal liberty. It is further not in dispute that she has solemnized marriage with the petitioner out of her own free will and volition. On a pointed query made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no FIR or criminal case has been registered against the petitioner by the father or any family member of the corpus. It also emerges that the corpus was initially placed at Nari Niketan, Raipur, and thereafter shifted to Sakhi Centre (One Stop Centre), Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. and no order of any competent authority or court authorizing such continued placement has been brought on record. 10. Learned State counsel also fairly submits that the corpus was referred to the aforesaid institutions only as a protective and 8 welfare measure and not under any judicial order of detention. In view of the admitted position that respondent No.9 is a major, that no criminal proceedings exist against the petitioner, and that no legal authority justifying her continued stay in Nari Niketan or Sakhi Centre (One Stop Centre), Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. has been produced, this Court is of the considered opinion that her liberty cannot be curtailed against her free will. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that respondent No.9, Yukti Patel, shall be set at liberty forthwith and shall be permitted to go and reside as per her own free will and choice. It is further directed that the learned State counsel shall communicate this order to the Sakhi Centre (One Stop Centre), Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, today itself for immediate compliance, ensuring that respondent No.9 is released without any delay or obstruction. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok