P. C. PATHAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production of respondent No. 1, Smt. Shilpa. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a christian by birth. After converting to Hinduism, he married respondent No. 1, daughter of respondent No. 2 in Gayatri Shakti Peeth, Durg, on 12-7-1985 in accordance with Hindu rites, including saptapadi. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 thereafter went to the petitioners parents house at Bhilainagar and stayed there as husband and wife. On 13-7-1985, at about 3 a. m. , respondents 2 and 3 accompanied by police, came to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were taken to the police station, where respondent No. 2 threatened the petitioner and his parents with dire consequences, if they did not hand over the custody of respondent No. 1. Finally, the petitioner allowed respondent No. 1 to go with her father after executing some papers described as compromised documents. After their departure, the petitioner made several attempts to locate her whereabouts but all invain. As a last resort, the petitioner sent a legal notice by a registered post to respondents 1 and 2 but they were returned with the endorsements that the addressees were out of station. The petitioner learns that respondent No. 1 has been taken away against her wishes by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 and is residing with him at Rewari (Haryana ). Artocities are being perpetrated on respondent No. 1 so as to persuade her not only to refuse to go to the petitioner but also give her consent so as to involve the petitioner in some criminal offence. The petitioner apprehends that she may soon be married against her wishes. He, therefore, prayed for a writ of habeas corpus. ( 3 ) THE respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by their separate returns, denied, that the petitioner ever converted to Hinduism or that any marriage took place as alleged. According to them, respondent No. 1 was residing with her parents at Dhamtari. The petitioner who was prosecuting his studies as a student of polytechnic, with the help of his friends and associates, forcibly kidnapped respondent No. 1 from the house at Dhamtari. A report to that effect was lodged in the police. According to them, respondent No. 1 was residing with her parents at Dhamtari. The petitioner who was prosecuting his studies as a student of polytechnic, with the help of his friends and associates, forcibly kidnapped respondent No. 1 from the house at Dhamtari. A report to that effect was lodged in the police. As a result of that, the police traced her out and restored to her father. It is also alleged that respondent No. 2 is a wealthy businessman of Dhamtari and the petitioner, who is a christian, filed the petitioner on false grounds to extort money. Respondent No. 3 stated that respondent No. 1 after staying for about four months with him, she voluntarily went to her maternal uncle, Rambilas Singhai, Excise Inspector, Gurgaon. They denied that her stay at Rewari was an illegal detention or was against her will or that she was subjected to any artocity. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this petition must be dismissed. Clause (2) of Article 226 provides that the power to issue writs conferred. by clause (1) may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power. According to the petitioner, the alleged illegal detention is in the State of Haryana while according to the respondents, she is now in Gurgaon. The petitioner made no allegation to show that any part of the cause of action arose within the State of Madhya Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the allegations in various paragraphs of the petition. In our opinion, the averments in those paragraphs do not show that respondent No. 1 is detained by respondent No. 2 illegally or against her wishes which necessitates issuance of a writ prayed for. ( 5 ) THE petition was filed after an inordinate delay which has not been explained at all. Respondent No. 1 went away with her father on 13-7-1985 while the registered notice was sent on 26-7-1985. The present petition was filed on 5-9-1985. The Supreme Court in A. K. Gopalan v. Govt. of India held the delay of four weeks to be inordinate. The petitioner could not explain the delay. Respondent No. 1 went away with her father on 13-7-1985 while the registered notice was sent on 26-7-1985. The present petition was filed on 5-9-1985. The Supreme Court in A. K. Gopalan v. Govt. of India held the delay of four weeks to be inordinate. The petitioner could not explain the delay. ( 6 ) THE petition also lacks in material particulars, apart from the fact that the affidavit in support was not sworn according to law. As seen above, the petitioner is a christian and claims to have embraced Hinduism. In this connection, he sworn an affidavit (Annexure A) wherein the words, translated in English, MJ accept Hindu religion were interlined by pen-writing. The petitioner filed a document (Annexure J), styled as a certificate, wherein the petitioner is said to have voluntarily received instructions in Vedic Gayatri Mantra. According to the petitioner recital of Gayatri Mantra and pronouncement of acceptance of Hinduism are enough to bring him in Hindu fold, while the respondents, submitted that the petitioner is a christian and he cannot become a Hindu by mere chanting of Mantras. Further the averments in that the petitioner converted himself into a Hindu are vague. The marriage between a christian boy and a Hindu girl is void. Our attention was also drawn to the photographs filed with the petition which according to the respondents are misleading. In short, the defence alleges that the requisite proof of the marriage is lacking. The Gayatri Shakti Peeth had earlier issued a certificate of marriage (Annexure D ). Another certificate (Annexure 1) has now been filed with the rejoinder. Although both purport to be of 12-7-1935, the contents are different. The petition thus involves disputed questions of fact. It is true that this Court can make necessary enquiry and if so required, may direct the subordinate Court to record the necessary evidence and obtain report but we are not inclined to undertake all that since the petitioner has more efficacious and alternative remedy of securing the custody of respondent No. 1 under section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He can also file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. See Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U. P. 2. He can also file a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. See Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U. P. 2. In that case, it was also observed that a writ of habeas corpus at the instance of man to obtain possession of a woman alleged to be his wife does not issue as a matter of course. ( 7 ) OUR conclusions are that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay which is not explained. The petition suffers from material allegations to demonstrate that a part of the cause of action arose in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Parties have joined issues on all questions of fact. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is not as prescribed by Rules, since the verification does not disclose the source of information, especially as regards the allegations of atrocities. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition fails and is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .