JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.This is a petiticin u/Art. 226 of the Constitution by a husband against his father-in-law Shri Jawahar Singh. Petitioner's contention is that he was married to Smt. Neetu Singh on 11.7.1997 and got the marriage registered with Arya Samaj, Moti Katla, Jaipur, that his wife Smt. Neetu Singh has now unlawfully been detained by her father Shri Jawahar Singh respondent No. 3. It was submitted that Smt. Neetu Singh was a major lady and she had conducted her marriage with the petitioner out of her free will and since she is being kept in unlawful detention. This Court should issue a writ in the nature of order or direction requiring Shri Jawahar Singh to set Smt. Neetu Singh to her liberty. 2. In the case of Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1625 , the Apex Court had considered such petitions by husbands. In para 13 their Lordships made the pertinent observations : "(13) 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 section 100 of the Cr.P.C. is always used. Then there is the remedy of a Civil suit for restitution of 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 facts can be tried and the writ of habeas corpus is probably not demanded in similar cases if issue 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 persoh for whom custody he demands the writ." 3. It is clear from the above that issuance of a writ petition u /Art. 226 of the Constitution against the parents of a married woman at the instance of her husband is not a legally sound and appropriate remedy in matrimonial cases. It is clear from the above that issuance of a writ petition u /Art. 226 of the Constitution against the parents of a married woman at the instance of her husband is not a legally sound and appropriate remedy in matrimonial cases. The jurisdiction of this Court u /Art. 226 is an extra-ordinary jurisdiction and it is to be exercised in exceptional cases, wherein breach of legal and /or constitutional rights is manifest and the citizen has no other equally efficacious remedy. 4. Where statutory remedies are available to a party he cannot be allowed to bye-pass the hierarchy in the relevant statute. In the present case an equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner for his grievance, if any, under section 97 Cr.P.C. There is no good ground to depart from the rule. In our opinion, therefore, it is not a fit case to invoke powers u / Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by us." See 142 ITR 663 and JT 1997(3) SC 717. 5. With the said observation, the petition is dismissed.Petition disallowed. *******