Honble JAIN, J. – This is a Habeas Corpus Petition Petitioner No. 1 Anish iqbal claims to be the Husband of detenue Ms. Neeta Jain having married her before the Qazi on May 29,1995. Petitioner No.2 is father of petitioner No. 1 Anish Iqbal. (2) The petitioners case is that respondent No. 3 father of Ms. Neeta Jain filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur against petitioner No.1 under Sections 365 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Police Station, Ambamata,Udaipur for registration and investigation.On investigation, the police gave a final report. (3) On April 27,1995 Ms. Neeta Jain was sent for medical examination by Psychiatrist and remained in his observation for five days. Then her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on May 1,1995.According to the petitioners she made a statement that she had gone of her free will with the petitioners on March 25,1995. A copy of that statement has been produced as Annexure/2 to the petition but it is not a certified copy. This statement was recorded on May 2,1995. On the same day, Ms. Neeta Jain moved an application for being sent to some hostel for ladies, run by the Government. Accordingly she was sent to rescue home. The petitioner No.1kept on trying to get custody of Ms.Neeta Jain or to get her released.On May 3,1995 she wrote to the Chief Judicial Magistrate from the rescue home retracting her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made before the Magistrate. She expressed desire to go to her parental family and stated that she did not want to go to the house of Anish Iqbal and did not want to stay with him. The Secretary of the Institution,Mahila Mandal, Udaipur and Warden of the Rescue Home certified on the letter that this letter was written by Ms.Neeta Jain without any undue influence or pressure. (4) On May 6,1995, the Judicial Magistrate considered two applications, one filed by father of Ms.Neeta Jain and other by Anish Iqbal.After hearing arguments on the applications, the learned Magistrate ordered production of Ms Neeta Jain at 7.30 A.M. on May 8,1995 in his Court. On May 8, 1995 when Ms. (4) On May 6,1995, the Judicial Magistrate considered two applications, one filed by father of Ms.Neeta Jain and other by Anish Iqbal.After hearing arguments on the applications, the learned Magistrate ordered production of Ms Neeta Jain at 7.30 A.M. on May 8,1995 in his Court. On May 8, 1995 when Ms. Neeta Jain was produced before the Magistrate she was allowed time to think over the matter coolly and was made to sit in the Chambers of the learned Magistrate without any other person accompanying her from 8.15 A.M. to 10.30 A.M. At 10.30 A.M. Ms.Neeta Jain was called in the Court Room where her father and one other relative as also Anish Iqbals father Mujibur Rahim, petitioner No. 2 were present. In the presence of all concerned, she expressed a desire to go with her father. Accordingly she was allowed to accompany her father as she was major and was free to go any where she liked. That should have been the end of the matter. (5)However, the petitioners filed Habeas Corpus Petition No.144 of 1995 before this Court stating that on May 11,1995. Ms. Neeta Jain made a telephone call to petitioner No. 1, informing him that whatever she had stated before the Magistrate on May 8,1995 was under pressure from her father and Police administration and she still wanted to live with petitioner No.1 and requested him to take her away from her parents houe. This petition was dismissed in limine by this Court on May 17,1995. (6) It is alleged by the petitioners that thereafter on July19,1995, petitioners received letter dated July 5,1995 written by Ms. Neeta Jain stating that her life was in danger and her parents were planning to sent her to some Centre for women. In this letter she had requested the petitioner to take her away from the custody of her parents.On the basis of this letter, the second Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed. (7) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. (8) This appears to be a case where the alleged detenue Ms. In this letter she had requested the petitioner to take her away from the custody of her parents.On the basis of this letter, the second Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed. (7) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. (8) This appears to be a case where the alleged detenue Ms. Neeta Jain is vaci- llating in her decision and appears to be changing her stand from time to time.Before the learned Magistrate,she had earlier desired to go with the petitioner No. 1, then changed her mind after sometime and expressed her desire to go with her father.Now it is stated that she had changed her mind again. Even if this be true, there is no guarantee that she would not change her mind again before she is brou- ght before this Court. Then again after this Court makes an order one way or the other, she is free to change her mind again and one of the parties would be before us again with a prayer for issue of writ of habeas corpus again. How long can this be permitted to go on? After all it is a writ of right but not of course and the Court has discretion, in the matter which has to be judiciously exercised. In these circum- stances, it would not be proper for this Court to go on acting on infornation about every change of her mood and exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction of ascertaining the wishes of such a lady. It is not a clear case of detention against her wishes specially when she is alleged to be detained by her parents who may be opposed to her marriage to petitioner No.1, but are certainly not her enemies. (9) In Mohd.lkram Hussain vs. The State of U.P. and others (1), the Supreme Court has observed that at Common Law a writ of habeas corpus was available to the husband for regaining the custody of his wife if she was wringfully detained by anyone from him without her consent. What amounts to wrongful detention of the wife is of course, a question for the Court to decide in each case and different cir- cumstances may exist either entiting or disentitling a husband to this remedy. What amounts to wrongful detention of the wife is of course, a question for the Court to decide in each case and different cir- cumstances may exist either entiting or disentitling a husband to this remedy. (10) In Paragraph-13 of the decision, the Court observed as follows : ``Exigence of the writ at the instance of a husband is very rare in English Law, and in India the writ of habeas corpus is probably never used by a husband to regain his wife and the alternative remedy under S. 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is always used. Then there is the remedy of a civil suit for restitution of the conjugal rights. Husbands take recourse to the latter when the detention does not amount to an offence and to the former if it does. In both these remedies all the issues of fact can be tried and the writ of habeas corpus is probably not demanded in similer cases if issues of fact have first to be 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 of course singularly inappropriate in cases where the petitioner is himself charged with a criminal offence in respect of the very person for whose custody he demands the writ. (11) It was further observed in Paragraph-15 of the decision as follows : `` A writ of habeas corpus of the instance of a man to obtain possession of a woman alleged to be his wife does not issue as a matter of course. though a writ of right,it is not a writ of course especially when a man seeks the assistance of the Court to regain the custody of a woman. Beofre a Court accedes to this request it must satisfy itself at least prima facie that the person claiming the writ is in fact the husband and further whether valid marriage between him and the woman could at all have taken place. (12) In the light of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, when we examine the facts of this case what we find is that there is no material placed on record to show that Ms. (12) In the light of the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court, when we examine the facts of this case what we find is that there is no material placed on record to show that Ms. Neeta Jain had converted herself to lslam.The documentary evidence of `Nikah Annexure-A.1 to the petition describes her as Neeta Jain @ Aafia daughter of Madan Lal Jain.Only by putting an additional muslim name as alias, no inference can be drawn that she had been converted to lslam. Validity of such a conversion dictated by convenience rather than conviction is also not free from doubt. Prima facie, the alleged marriage therefore, cannot be taken to be valid because marriage between a Jain girl governed by Hindu Law cannot be solemnized with a Muslim in accordance with Muslim law and the Qazi had no legal authority to solemnize such a marriage. The alleged marriage was clearly a clandes- tine affair, if the statement of Ms. Neeta Jain before the Magistrate Annexure/2 is to be believed. She had stated nothing in that statement about her conversion. She only spoke about marriage according to lslamic rites. She stated that only the relatives of Anish Iqbal were present at the marriage which was perfomed in his house. She returned to her parents ta house on the same day i.e. March 29,1995 and did not disclose the fact of the marriage to any one. One April 4,1994, she went away with Anish Iqbal by bus to Bhilwara stayed there for two Says with the relatives of Anish iqubal and then went to Neemach and stayed there in a hotel for three days and returned on April 25,1995 to Udaipur. It prima facie appears that it was a case of elopement rather than that of a regular marriage. We therefore,on the basis of material before use, are not satisfied that petitioner No. 1 is in fact and in law the husband of Ms.Neeta Jain.We are also not satisfied prima facie about the authenticity of the letter alleged to have been written by Ms. Neeta Jain on July 5, 1995, which is said to be addressed to petitioner No.2, while the address on the envelope is of petitioner No. 1 (13) In these circumstances, we do no find it a fit case for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (14) The petition is dismissed.