[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Maheshwar Behra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18338-DB
Digitally signed by
ALOK SHARMA
NAFR
Date: 2026.04.22
18:12:47 +0530 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)
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 Ravindra 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
