Habeas corpus is not maintainable solely on marriage assertions without prima facie evidence of illegal detention.

The petitioner, Sudhir Dhruv, alleged that he lawfully married Isha on 27.03.2026 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur Naka, according to established customs

He contended that his wife, a major, was being unlawfully restrained by her father (Respondent No. 5) against her free will

Despite a written complaint to the police on 13.04.2026, no action was taken to recover her

Consequently, the petitioner filed this Habeas Corpus petition seeking her production and liberty to reside with him

The Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 3) argued it was a misjoined party

The State contended the petition lacked evidence of illegal confinement beyond a mere marriage certificate

1. Whether the mere existence of a marriage certificate is sufficient to presume the illegal detention of a wife residing with her parents for the purpose of issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus

2. Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case of unlawful restraint or violation of Article 21 to warrant the court's extraordinary jurisdiction

The court applied the constitutional principles of Article 21 regarding the right to life and personal liberty

It relied on the settled legal principle that a writ of Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary remedy maintainable only upon a clear and prima facie showing of illegal detention

The court emphasized that the jurisdiction cannot be invoked based on conjectures, unsubstantiated allegations, or bald assertions without supporting material such as an affidavit or statement from the alleged detenue

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s reliance on an Arya Samaj marriage certificate was insufficient to prove the detention was "illegal"

It observed that a marriage does not create a legal presumption of detention simply because a wife resides with her relatives

The court highlighted a critical evidentiary gap: there was no affidavit, communication, or statement from Isha indicating she was confined against her will or desired to reside with the petitioner

Since the petitioner failed to place any cogent material to demonstrate unlawful restraint, the court determined that the high threshold for exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction had not been met

The court found no merit in the petitioner's apprehensions and dismissed the writ petition