S. K. PHAUJDAR, J. The instant habeas corpus petition was filed by Sri Alimuddin on behalf of Smt. Musharrat Shaheen upon a claim that the lady was his wife and she was being detained illegally by her father and brother. It was asserted in the application that Smt. M. Shaheen was aged about 19 years on the date of filing of the application (January, 1997) and she was the legally wedded wife of Alimuddin Khan. It was stated that Alimuddin had been a permanent resident of the district of Siddhartha Nagar but was now staying in Calcutta in connection with his livelihood. He developed intimacy with M. Shaheen and their marriage was performed at Nak-huda mosque, Calcutta, under the Special Marriage Act U Siddhartha Nagar. On 2-4-1997 she came to Siddhartha Nagar alongwith Alimuddin and started living there permanently. On 1st June, 1997 (sic), respondent No. 2 (Yaser Arafat) brother of the girl, came to Siddhartha Nagar and took her away to Calcutta on the pretext of illness of her father, Mohd. Daud (respondent No. 1), on a promise to reach her back to Siddhartha Nagar within a week. However, on 6th June, 1997, the girl telephoned her husband from Calcutta about her being beaten up by the respon dents simply for having married Alimud din. She also complained of illegal deten tion by her father and brother. She also informed that she was apprehending that she would be shifted to some unknown destination against her wishes and might be compelled to marry again. 2. Upon this information, Alimuddin and his mother went to Calcullta. They tried to contact the girl and she allegedly told the mother of Alimuddin in a talk through window that she was forcibly con fined in her fathers house. It was not denied in the application that Alimuddin had one living wife living at Siddhartha Nagar and this lady had no complaint against her, nor was she against the second marriage of Alimuddin with M. Shaheen. A prayer for writ of habeas corpus for production of the girl in the court was made together with a prayer for such other consequential order as the court would deem fit. 3. Upon this application an order was recorded on 23-6-97 by Honble G. P. Mathur, J. who had questioned the ter ritorial jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. 3. Upon this application an order was recorded on 23-6-97 by Honble G. P. Mathur, J. who had questioned the ter ritorial jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The learned Counsel sought time to make submissions on this point and the matter was adjourned. The matter was next placed before Honble O. P. Garg, J. on 16-7-97 who had, after hearing the learned Counsel for the ap plicant, directed issuance of notice to respondents 1 and 2 for filing counter-af fidavit within a time specified therein. A time for rejoinder was also given. There was a further direction that Musarrat Shaheen was to be produced before the Court on 16-10-1997. 4. On this adjourned date, the matter was placed before Honble I. M. Quddusi, J. and a counter-affidavit was also filed. The petitioner was granted only a days time to file a rejoinder affidavit and the girl was directed to be produced on 17th Oc tober, 1997 when the matter was to be put up in the chambers of the Honble Judge presumably on the ground of the delicate situation of the case. 5. On 17-10-97 Musarrat Shaheen was produced by her parents and her state ment was recorded. There was no chal lenge to her identity. She had made a categorical statement that she did not want to live with her parents nor with Alimud din. She alleged that the habeas corpus petition was undoubtedly filed under her instruction but subsequently Alimuddin had given talaq to her. She wanted to con tinue her studies. Accordingly, the Honble Judge directed that she may be kept under the Government Shelter Home and the matter was adjourned on 11-11-97 as a part-heard matter. 6. On the very next day, an applica tion was placed before Honble I. M. Qud dusi, J. forwarded by the officials of the shelter home with a prayer that Musarrat Shaheen might be permitted to stay for two days at Allahabad where after she wanted to go with her parents. The Honble Judge desired the girl to be produced before him and the matter was taken up on 20-10-97 again. 7. On that day, M. Shaheen was produced from the shelter home and she had given a fresh statement. At first, she made certain statements. Buisubse quietly she changed the versions, as is evident from the order-sheet dated 20-10-97. The Honble Judge desired the girl to be produced before him and the matter was taken up on 20-10-97 again. 7. On that day, M. Shaheen was produced from the shelter home and she had given a fresh statement. At first, she made certain statements. Buisubse quietly she changed the versions, as is evident from the order-sheet dated 20-10-97. The father of the girl was also examined and the Honble Judge observed at the end of his order of the date, "in view of the above undertaking given by the father of Musar-rat Shaheen and also in view of her state ment that at present she is willing to go with her parents and also considering the conditions of the contradictory statement given by the girl, the girl is given in the custody of her parents with the conditions that her father shall produce the girl before this Court as and when this court requires. " 8. The next relevant judicial order was recorded by Honble I. M. Quddusi, J. on 27-12-97, whereby his Lordship directed the matter to be put up on 27-1-98 requiring production or the girl before the court. This was done upon an applica tion made on behalf of Alimuddin. The order for production of girl had been reiterated and her production could be achieved only on 16-3-98. On that date, the court had again recorded her state ment. The matter was adjourned to the next day and thereafter an order was passed to the following effect: "in the interest of the girl, it is desirable that a direction be issued to allow the girl to go according to her wishes. Meanwhile, she should appear in person and should be brought before this court with whom she desires to go from time to time and as and when required. At this stage the girl Musarrat Shaheen has desired to go with Alimuddin. She is permitted to go with him. However, Alimuddin is directed to produce the girl in person on 29th April, 1998, before this court. " 9. On the adjourned date the girl was not produced and a warning was issued on Alimuddin for action against him if he failed to produced the girl on the next date. The girl was produced before the court on 11-5-98 and the father of the girl desired that the mental condition of the girl be examined. " 9. On the adjourned date the girl was not produced and a warning was issued on Alimuddin for action against him if he failed to produced the girl on the next date. The girl was produced before the court on 11-5-98 and the father of the girl desired that the mental condition of the girl be examined. This contention was opposed by the other side. The court again asked the girl if she desired to go at her parents place and she out rightly refused to go with her parents and desired to live with Alimud din. On 1-6-98 Honble I. M. Quddusi, J. released the matter for being placed before the appropriate bench. Only thereafter the matter came up before this court as by then the jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus writ petitions against alleged private detentions was entrusted to this court. 10. When the matter came up before this court on 4-9-98, it was thought proper after hearing the parties that the girl should be present for knowing her present wishes. She was produced on 8-10-98. Cer tain points were formulated for deter mination of the present writ petition. The points were as follows: (1) If this court had a territorial jurisdic tion; (2) If the habeas corpus petition is main tainable at the instance of Alimuddin Khan; (3) If at all she had been under wrongful detention, whether the court would be debarred from recording an order despite the averment that Alimuddin was not her husband; and (4) Whether the court could have passed a writ or order for her custody once she was given in the custody of her parents. 11. The matter was finally heard on 9-10-98 when the girl Musarrat Shaheen was also produced and she categorically stated that she was happily living with her husband and she desired to go with him only. 12. As regards the first point, as framed above, it was urged on behalf of the respondents that the Allahabad High Court did not have jurisdiction to issue a writof habeas corpus as the alleged deten tion was made at Calcutta. 12. As regards the first point, as framed above, it was urged on behalf of the respondents that the Allahabad High Court did not have jurisdiction to issue a writof habeas corpus as the alleged deten tion was made at Calcutta. In an answer to this, the learned Counsel for the Alimud din submitted that the alleged detention in fact started from Siddhartna Nagar when the girl was taken away on false pretext, and the consent given by the husband was on consent at all as it was obtained upon a false representation of facts. The question of jurisdiction maybe looked into from the developments in this case. 13. The court which had first received the petition, had raised that point and wanted a clarification from the learned Counsel for Alimuddin. When the matter came up before the next Honble Judge the matter was heard and after hearing the court had direcdirected production of the girl in court. This suggests that the objection regarding jurisdiction was prima fade overruled by Honble O. P. Garg, J. as he had given a direction for production of the girl. This order was not challenged in any appellate forum and, as such, in my view, this point may not be agitated again before this Court. This situation may be viewed from another angle. After production of the girl and after her examination she was given in the custody of her father and who had, upon some undertaking, accepted that custody without raising any voice that the court had no jurisdiction to record any order touching the custody of the girl for lack of territorial jurisdiction. When the order was in his favour he did not raise any objection, but now when the girl has chosen to go with Alimuddin, this objec tion is being pressed. Moreover, there is sufficient force in the argument of Sri Kazmi when he says that the wrongful detention really started from Siddhartha Nagar when the girl was removed from there upon a false pretext. If a practical view of the matter is not taken, then it will be very easy for wrong doers to go on shifting the detainee from one place to another and, thereby, evading any prob able direction for habeas corpus only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Point No. 1 is thus answered in the affirmative. 14. If a practical view of the matter is not taken, then it will be very easy for wrong doers to go on shifting the detainee from one place to another and, thereby, evading any prob able direction for habeas corpus only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Point No. 1 is thus answered in the affirmative. 14. The next two questions may be taken up together. It was urged that Alimuddin had divorced Musarrat Shaheen and was thus not the husband of the girl and the prayer for habeas corpus was not maintainable at his instance. The exercise of power of habeas corpus may not be linked with the party who moves the application on behalf of the person detained. If the court is satisfied that a particular person is being detained illegal ly, it would, notwithstanding the status of the person moving the application, issue a direction or her production and release forthwith. The status of Alimuddin is of little consequence towards the main tainability of the habeas corpus applica tion. Regarding his status as husband, now doubt at one point of time, Musarrat Shaheen had stated about her divorce given to her by him, but it was never the plea of Alimuddin that he had divorced her and the subsequent conduct of Musarrat Shaheen negatives the allegations of divorce. However, a thorough discussion on this point is not necessary in this proceeding for habeas corpus as the matrimonial court may determine it if at all such a question is posed at any future point of time. 15. Regarding the fourth point, as formulated above, it is found from the record and orders as quoted above that at one point of time, upon a statement of the girl and according to her wishes, she was given in the custody of her parents but that was not the final order as the court had required the father to produce the girl as and when directed. A second direction, again according to the wishes of the girl, allowing her to go with her husband is, therefore, proper not only in law but on facts as well. 16. A second direction, again according to the wishes of the girl, allowing her to go with her husband is, therefore, proper not only in law but on facts as well. 16. The Constitution guarantees liberty to a citizen and if she or he is a major, she or he should have the right to choose her place of residence and rights according to personal laws may not stand on the way of this fundamental right of liberty. Musarrat Shaheen is undoubtedly a girl aged beyond 18 years and she is well educated too, as is evident from her state ments given in court and answers given by her on my questions on 9-10-98. She must have the liberty to choose her place of residence and when she wished even on 9-10-98 to go with Alimuddin whom she claimed as her husband and with whom she asserted full compatibility, the court may not stand on the way of her movements giving any direction against her wishes. 17. Case laws relied upon by the father of Musarrat Shaheen no doubt speak of jurisdiction of theocratic in Habeas corpus matter, but it has been found on facts that the illegal detention started from Siddhartha Nagger and, as such the case-laws may not be relevant on this question. If was further argued that in habeas corpus petition, the court was to give proper regard to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of return and not with reference to the institution of the proceeding. It was argued that on the date of production she was not under any illegal detention and, as such, the writ of habeas corpus could not have been granted. The very fact that Muskrat Shaken did not want to go with her parents with whom she was staying at the time of initiation of the proceeding and on the date of her produc tion in the court, suggests that the court has a jurisdiction to record an order even though she is at present living at a place according to her wishes without any force or coercion. 18. In view of the afore-mentioned discussions, the present petitions stands disposed of with a direction that Musarrat Shaheen is free to live with Alimuddin according to her own choice and volition, as stated in court. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. 18. In view of the afore-mentioned discussions, the present petitions stands disposed of with a direction that Musarrat Shaheen is free to live with Alimuddin according to her own choice and volition, as stated in court. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of. .