JUDGMENT D.S. Bajpa, J. - One Anil Kumar Srivastava alleging himself to be the husband of Ms. Anita has filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus praying for production of the corpus of said Ms. Anita and to set her at liberty by revoking her illegal confinement by respondents 2 and 3 (wrongly mentioned as respondents 1 and 2) against her wishes. No allegation against respondent No. 1 except that Anil Kumar Srivastava wanted to lodge a first information report and which was not taken cognizance by the said respondent No. 1 Inspector of Police of P.S. Sahadatganj, district Lucknow, has been made and as such notice against respondent No. 1, Inspector of Police, is discharged. Respondents 2 and 3 are respectively father and mother of Ms. Anita who is present in the court. It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner was born on 5-6-1964 as is evident by her high school certificate filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition and that the said Ms. Anita was married with Anil Kumar Srivastava on 2-6-1986; a certificate to which effect is said to have been issued by Arya Samaj, Ganesh Ganj, Lucknow which is filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by Anil Kumar Srivastava on the ground that he was the husband of the detenue and that since the detenue was in illegal detention, she could not approach this court by a writ of habeas corpus and also could not file an affidavit in support of the present petition. The question involved in the writ petition is not about the factum of marriage or other irrelevant facts mentioned in the writ petition about any love affair going on between Ms. Anita and Anil Kumar Srivastava. The material brought on the record also does not link Ms. Anita directly with the petitioner and it is not indicated as to when and how the correspondence, if any, was carried on between them. The detenue, Anita has been examined by me in my chambers in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. It may here be indicated that Anita, had earlier been identified by Anil Kumar Srivastava in the open court. The detenue, Anita has been examined by me in my chambers in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties. It may here be indicated that Anita, had earlier been identified by Anil Kumar Srivastava in the open court. Before she was examined, she was fully protected and that there was no restriction or coercion on her from either side within the premises of the court and that she was free to make any statement that was true and correct of her own free will. She was also assured that after making any statement she would thereafter also be protected in case she wanted any such protection. 2. The stand taken by respondents 2 and 3 has been that Anita was their daughter and was living with them. The factum of marriage entered into by Anita with Anil Kumar Srivastava has been seriously assailed and to set the controversy at rest I am informed that a suit for declaring the alleged marriage as void has been filed and is pending in the Court of Munsif, North, Lucknow. This position has not been denied by the learned counsel for Anil Kumar Srivastava. I refrain from recording any finding on this aspect of the matter which is subject matter of suit before the learned Munsif and the Munsif will be at liberty to proceed and decide the case on merits. 3. The only question that engages the attention of this court in a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether a detenue is under illegal confinement or is staying at any place of his her own sweet will and there is any restriction on the movement or in contacting the said detenue at any time if she wishes so. The statement of Ms. Anita has been recorded. She has stated her age to be 22 years and her residence as 404/38, Chaupatiya Road, Lucknow and has further stated that she has come from the residence of her parents to the court. She has also deposed that there is no restriction on her movements from her parents' residence and that she is under no prohibition to meet or contract anybody. Anita has further stated that she is living happily with her parents and would like to go from ; the court with her parents. 4. The statement of the alleged detenue, Ms. She has also deposed that there is no restriction on her movements from her parents' residence and that she is under no prohibition to meet or contract anybody. Anita has further stated that she is living happily with her parents and would like to go from ; the court with her parents. 4. The statement of the alleged detenue, Ms. Anita Gupta leaves no room for doubt that she is under no illegal confinement and that she is living happily with her parents and that she wants to go to her parents. This court cannot enter into the question of marriage and even if she may be married to Anil Kumar Srivastava as alleged, the court, in such circumstances, cannot set her at liberty since she is already free to move out and go wherever she likes and the question of revoking her illegal confinement does not arise. Anil Kumar Srivastava has other remedies which he can, if he so advised, avail. 5. For the reasons indicated here-in-above, this petition for habeas corpus must fail and is distressed with cost of Rs. 500/- to be paid by Anil Kumar Srivastava to respondents 2 and 3.