S. K. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed on behalf of Sonia, by her alleged husband Ram Bahori for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus Petition to release the alleged wife Sonia from the unlawful detention by her father Chhotey Lal and another. ( 2 ) IN this writ petition both Ram Bahori and Sonia are arrayed as petitioners and affidavit in support of the petition has been filed by Ram Bahori. ( 3 ) THE relevant allegations in the petition are that Sonia, aged about 22 years, and the petitioner Ram Bahori fell in love with each other and ultimately they decided to get themselves married but the father of the girl Chhotey Lal, respondent No. 2, did not agree to the proposal and wanted to marry his daughter with some other person for which Sonia did not agree. Under the above state of affairs it is averred that Sonia and Ram Bahori went to a temple and accepted each other as wife and husband before God. It will be relevant to point out that this is the only, averment in respect of the marriage of Ram Bahori and Sonia. It is further stated that both Ram Bahori and Sonia entered into a matrimonial agreement on the same day and got the same registered on 6-4-1987, photostat copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is also averred in paragraph 7 of the petition that the father of Sonia lodged a First Information Report under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also relevant to point out that no further detail was given whether charge sheet has been filed in the Court in respect of the First Information Report against Ram Bahori. Under the above set of circumstances the prayer for a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition has been made by means of this petition. The petitioner, Ram Bahori, has also prayed that the respondent No. 2 be directed to produce Sonia before this Court so that her wishes may be enquired into and she should be set at liberty. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. The petitioner, Ram Bahori, has also prayed that the respondent No. 2 be directed to produce Sonia before this Court so that her wishes may be enquired into and she should be set at liberty. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. In this case the bald allegation that Sonia is aged about 22 years is not supported by any documentary evidence and the averment regarding the age has been sworn on personal knowledge by Ram Bahori, the deponent. Certainly, Ram Bahori cannot have any personal knowledge about the age of Sonia, neither any copy of birth certificate has been produced nor any certificate, such as, scholar register, school certificate etc. have been produced. Thus, prima facie, the averments made in para 2 of the petition, regarding her age, do not inspire any confidence and, therefore, it has not been, prima facie, established that Sonia has reached the age of majority. The allegation regarding marriage has been made in paragraph 5 of the. petition, which runs as under : "that the petitioner No. 2 (Sonia) was seriously disturbed and aggrieved with attitude of her father and she after escaping the eyes of her father, met with the petitioner No. 1 (Ram Bahori) on 6-4-1987, and they immediately went in a temple and accepted each other as husband and wife witnessing the God. " this averment, no doubt, creats a perfumed mysry but the averments are not at all sufficient to make out any case in favour of the petitioners that they, in fact, got married. There is absolutely no specific and clear averment of Ram Bahori that he was married with Sonia under a recognised form of marriage. Thus, these allegations regarding the marriage of Ram Bahori with Sonia also do not inspire any confidence and is not relied upon and is, therefore, rejected. In this case, it will be necessary to point out that the matrimonial agreement has been relied upon, To my mind such matrimonial agreement has no sanctity in the eye of law. Further there was absolutely no necessity of matrimonial agreement in case there was a marriage between Ram Bahori and Sonia. In Paragraph 7 of the petition it has been averred that the father of Sonia has lodged a First Information Report against Ram Bahori under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Further there was absolutely no necessity of matrimonial agreement in case there was a marriage between Ram Bahori and Sonia. In Paragraph 7 of the petition it has been averred that the father of Sonia has lodged a First Information Report against Ram Bahori under sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no averment whether any investigation has been made nor there is any averment regarding the submission of charge-sheet by the police in the Court. ( 5 ) AT common law a writ of Habeas Corpus was available to the husband for regaining the custody of his wife if she was wrongfully detained by any one from him without any consent. Exigence of the writ, at the instance of a husband, is very rare and in India the Habeas Corpus Petition, in the past, was never used by the husband to regain his wife. But now it has become a regular practice to file a writ by the alleged husband to regain his alleged wife specially when a criminal case or investigation is pending and the alternative remedy under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not availed by him. Then there is a remedy of a Civil Suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The husband can always take recourse to the Civil Suit for restitution of conjugal rights when the detention does not amount to an offence. In case the detention amounts to an offence then the remedy lies under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In both the remedies, all the issues of fact can be tried and a definite finding can be recorded regarding age and marriage by Civil Court. In case of Habeas Corpus Petition issues of fact regarding age and marriage are first to be, prima facie, established. This is because the writ of Habeas Corpus is festinum remedium and the power can only be exercised in a clear case. It is also inappropriate in cases where the alleged husband himself is charged with a criminal case in respect of a very person for whose custody he demands a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition. This is because the writ of Habeas Corpus is festinum remedium and the power can only be exercised in a clear case. It is also inappropriate in cases where the alleged husband himself is charged with a criminal case in respect of a very person for whose custody he demands a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition. Thus, when a first Information Report has been lodged against Ram Bahori under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court shall have to be satisfied first about the factum of the marriage and the age of the girl with more circumspection before issuing a notice on the Habeas Corpus Petition. A writ of Habeas Corpus Petition, at the instance of a man to obtain possession of a woman alleged to be his wife does not issue as a matter of course. Habeas Corpus Petition is a writ of right but it is not a writ of course especially when a man seeks the assistance of the Court under the present circumstances to regain the custody of a woman. ( 6 ) IN this case I am not inclined to issue any notice to the respondents, before such notice can be issued it is the duty of the petitioner to, prima facie, establish that his alleged wife has reached the age of majority and that there is, prima facie, evidence of marriage and further there is no criminal case pending or under investigation against him in respect of a woman for whom the writ petition has been filed. In this case I have already recorded a finding that the petitioner, Ram Bahori, has miserably failed to establish a prima facie case that Sonia has reached the age of majority and further there was any valid marriage of Sonia with Ram Bahori in the eye of law. Further the petitioner has not given details regarding the First Information Report lodged against him by the father of Sonia under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code In view of the facts and circumstances, narrated above, I hold that this Habeas Corpus Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. .