Allahabad High Court
PRASHANT GAUTAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- INDRAJEET SHUKLA
Holding
The habeas corpus petition fails as the alleged detainee is a major, free to reside where she chooses, and no illegal detention is established.
Summary
The petitioners sought a writ of habeas corpus directing the State respondents to produce Smt. Neelam, the wife of petitioner No.1, and to release her from the custody of respondents No.4‑6. The court examined the age and status of Neelam, who produced a high school certificate showing a birth date of 20‑03‑2007, making her a major. Neelam testified that she was not detained against her will by her parents and expressed a desire to return to her parental home, though she alleged threats from petitioner No.1. The court found no evidence of illegal detention, coercion, or threat by the family members and therefore dismissed the habeas corpus petition. It directed the police to ensure Neelam’s safety and to escort her and her family to their native place, and ordered the order to be communicated to the Additional Government Advocate.
Issues considered
- Whether Smt. Neelam is being illegally detained and thus eligible for habeas corpus relief
- Whether the petitioner is a minor requiring protection under law
- Whether there is coercion or threat justifying court intervention
Subjects
- habeas corpus
- illegal detention
- major
- coercion
- marriage
- police protection
- parental custody
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 437 of 2026
Prashant Gautam And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohit Kumar Singh, Sujata Choudhary
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Hans Nath Pandey
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State
respondents and Sri Vindhyachal Singh holding brief of Sri H.N.Pandey,
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed with following relief :
"(i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus
directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to produce the corpus
namely Smt. Neelam (wife of petitioner no. 1) before this Hon'ble
Court and release the corpus from the clutches of respondent nos.
4 to 6 and handover the custody of the corpus to the petitioner
(husband) forthwith."
3. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated 07.05.2026, the petitioner
no. 2 (alleged detenue/corpus), has been brought before this Court by her
father along with mother and brother, who have been identified by Sri
Vindhyachal Singh, learned counsel.
4. With respect to age, photo copy of High School certificate has been
produced which exhibits the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is 20.03.2007.
The photo copy of High School certificate is marked as 'X' and is retained on
record.
5. On enquiry by the Court, petitioner no.2 clearly stated "I am major and
my age mentioned in the High School certificate is 20.03.2007. I did not
enter into the marriage willingly. Today, I have come along with my parents.
I am happy with my parents. They have not detained me against my wishes.
HABC No. 437 of 2026
2
Being a major, I can understand good and bad about my future. I am not
under any sort of coercion though on the other hand, it is petitioner no 1 who
is threatening me and my family members for dire consequences if my
parents do not send me for company of petitioner no. 1, Prashant Gautam. I
want to go back to my parental house along with my family members, some
protection may be extended to me and my family."
6. On examination of petitioner no. 2 it comes out that she is major and is
free to reside at a place of her choice. She does not appear to be under any
threat, coercion or illegal detention at the hands of her family
members/parents.
7. Thus, instant habeas corpus petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
8. The petitioner no. 2 would be at liberty to go back along with her family
members to the place of her choice including her parental home.
9. Since she has expressed threat at the hand of petitioner no. 1 itself as such
this Court directs Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines,
Prayagraj to ensure proper safety to petitioner no. 2 and her family members
and if required police official may escort them till they reach their native
place.
10. The Senior Superintendent of Police, District Prayagraj, is directed to
ensure adequate safety of the petitioner no. 2, corpus, at her parental home.
11. Office is directed to supply copy of this order to learned Additional
Government Advocate today itself for compliance.
May 18, 2026
Pratima
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRATIMA AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…