Aman Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3805 MP

                                      1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
                                  BEFORE
                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                           ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2022

                      WRIT PETITION No. 6348 of 2022

         Between:-
         AMAN KHAN S/O RAFIK KHAN , AGED ABOUT 24
         YE A R S , OCCUPATION: PRIVATE WORK R/O
         CHHAVDA SAHAB KE MAKAN KE PICHE,
         CHHAVDA COLONY, GUNA (MP)

                                                                   .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI VIJAY SUNDARAM, ADVOCATE )

         AND

1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
         PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
         VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.       SUPERINTENDENT          OF       POLICE,   DISTRICT
         SHIVPURI (MP)

3.       STATION HOUSE OFFICER, INDAR, DISTRICT
         SHIVPURI (MP)

4.       MAHENDRA SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI SHIVRAJ
         SINGH YADAV, R/O VILLAGE BAROD, TEHSIL
         BADARWAS,   DISTT.  SHIVPURI (MADHYA
         PRADESH)

                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
         (SHRI DEEPAK KHOT, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
         RESPONDENTS/STATE )



                                      ORDER

Petitioner, styling himself to be husband of the missing corpus of Ms.Bharti Yadav, has come before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking writ of habeas corpus inter alia alleging that she is in illegal confinement of her father/respondent no.4.

Shri Khot, learned Government Advocate appearing on advance notice has raised two fold preliminary submission - firstly petitioner styles himself as practicing muslim religion, whereas the missing corpus is said to be hindu by religion. There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner and the missing corpus have solemnized marriage recognized in law. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot be allowed to enforce marital rights, that too under Article 226 of

the Constitution. Secondly, if the missing corpus is living with her parents, she cannot be said to be in illegal confinement.

Shri Sundaram, while combating the aforesaid objections, placed reliance upon decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rashid Khan Vs. State of

M.P. (ILR (2015) MP 879) to contend that even in such a case this Court can exercise the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of habeas corpus.

Shri Khot, on perusal of the aforesaid judgment, submits that the same is distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as in the said case there was marriage between the parties and a Nikahnama was proof of the marriage, but as against the same, in the instant case, there is no such evidence on record. Petitioner, on his own showing, has been in live-in relationship with the corpus.

Be that as it may, in the obtaining facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the missing corpus cannot be said to be in illegal confinement warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petition sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE (and)

ANAND SHRIVASTAVA 2022.03.16 19:18:28 +05'30'