Fresh Habeas Corpus Plea By Father Not Maintainable After Major Woman States Choice Of Living With Partner: J&K&L High Court

The Court clarified that a Habeas Corpus petition cannot be employed as an indirect mechanism to review an earlier judicial determination regarding a person's voluntary choice, while disputes relating to the validity of marriage remain within the domain of the competent civil court.

The Court was hearing a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father of a major woman seeking a direction to the authorities to trace and produce his daughter before the Court so that her statement could be recorded in a free atmosphere. The petitioner questioned the legality of her alleged second marriage after religious conversion, contending that her earlier marriage under Muslim Personal Law continued to subsist. The petition arose after a Coordinate Bench had earlier disposed of a writ petition filed by the woman and her alleged husband seeking police protection.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,

"Asking the corpus to make another statement before this Court would indirectly amount to reviewing the earlier proceedings that have taken place in WP(C) No.1040/2026, which is not permissible in law."

The petitioner in his plea had submitted that his daughter had contracted a valid Nikah in accordance with Muslim Personal Law and that the marriage continued to subsist. According to him, she left home on the pretext of collecting educational documents from Chandigarh but subsequently stopped communicating with her family. During the police enquiry, it emerged that respondent No.5 had allegedly married the corpus after her religious conversion.

The petitioner further relied upon the fact that the corpus and respondent No.5 had earlier approached the High Court by way of a writ seeking police protection. While disposing of that petition, the Coordinate Bench had directed the authorities to ensure that the couple was not subjected to unjustified harassment and to provide protection whenever required.

The Court had, however, expressly clarified that it was not expressing any opinion regarding the validity of their marriage and had left it open to the parents and siblings of the corpus to challenge the marriage before the competent civil court.

Before the present Court, the petitioner contended that he entertained serious doubts regarding the alleged religious conversion of the corpus and the legality of the second marriage. He sought production of the corpus so that her wishes could be independently ascertained by the Court in an atmosphere free from coercion or undue influence.

While scrutinising the record the Court noted that the earlier writ petition filed by the corpus and respondent No.5 specifically pleaded that both were majors, had married at Arya Samaj Temple after the corpus had voluntarily undergone conversion, and were facing harassment from her family members.

It further noted that the Coordinate Bench had recorded their statements, examined documents including school certificates, Aadhaar cards and the marriage certificate, and thereafter granted them protection while consciously refraining from adjudicating upon the validity of their marriage.

The Court observed that the statement of the corpus had already been recorded by the Coordinate Bench and that, on the basis of her statement, she had been permitted to reside with respondent No.5 while leaving the issue of validity of the marriage open for determination by the civil court.

Finding no material to suggest that the earlier statement had been made under coercion or undue influence, the Court held,

"No material has been brought on record by the petitioner to persuade this Court to hold that the statement of corpus recorded by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court was made by her under undue influence or coercion."

Justice Dhar held that directing the corpus to again appear before the Court and make another statement would amount to an indirect review of the earlier proceedings, which is impermissible in law. The Court further observed that if the petitioner questioned the legality of the marriage, the appropriate remedy was to institute proceedings before the competent civil court, a liberty that had already been preserved in the earlier order.

Examining the scope of Habeas Corpus jurisdiction, the Court reiterated that such a writ can be issued only where the material indicates that a person is under illegal detention or is being confined against his or her wishes. Since the material on record demonstrated that the corpus was residing with respondent No.5 voluntarily and the petition did not even allege circumstances suggesting commission of any offence against her, the jurisdictional requirements for issuance of Habeas Corpus were absent, the court said.

The Court remarked,

"Her marriage with respondent No.5 may or may not be valid, but once the corpus is major and she has made an informed choice to live with respondent No.5, her stay in the company of the said respondent does not amount to any offence."

Holding that the petitioner had failed to place any fresh material warranting reconsideration of the earlier judicial determination regarding the corpus's voluntary choice, the Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition.

Case Title: Parvaiz Ahmad Khan v. Union Territory of J&K and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 318

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment