Honble MADAN, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). The case of the petitioner in short is that his marriage was solemnised with Ms. Minakshi on 17.2.1998 as per the Arya Samaj rites as per the marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj, Jaipur, dated 17.2.1998 which is on record. After the solemnisation of the marriage, petitioner and his wife Smt. Minakshi resided together for a short period but since it was not compatible for the parties to live together, the respondent-wife decided to withdraw her companionship with the petitioner and started living separately. The petitioner, thereafter, tried to contact his wife and came to know that she was at Barmer. The petitioner went to Barmer in April 1998 where he tried to contact her but she was staying with her relatives. Smt. Minakshi refused to join the companionship of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came back to Jaipur and moved this Court by way of Habeas Corpus petition. (3). During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that Ms. Minakshi has illegally withdrawn from the companionship of the petitioner at the behest of her parents. The respondent No.4 is the father of Smt. Minakshi while respondent No.5 is a relative of Ms. Minakshi and she is forced to live with them and hence in their unlawful detention. (4). During the pendency of this petition on 15th June 1998, it was specifically directed that the corpus of Ms. Minakshi be produced in the Court and she was accordingly produced before it. Her statement was recorded on oath and thereafter, the statement was kept in sealed cover by the Dy. Registrar (Judicial). (5). We have perused the statement of Smt. Minakshi which was brought in sealed cover. From the perusal of the said statement, it is apparent that no force, undue influence or pressure was ever exercised on Ms. Minakshi by her parents or other relatives namely; the respondents No.4 and 5 as alleged by the petitioner. Since the relief which the petitioner has sought is with regard to production of Ms. Minakshi, has already become infructuous, consequent upon production of Ms. Minakshi in Court and also in view of her voluntary statement which was recorded by us, we are of the view that this petition does not survive any further for consideration of this Court. (6). Since the relief which the petitioner has sought is with regard to production of Ms. Minakshi, has already become infructuous, consequent upon production of Ms. Minakshi in Court and also in view of her voluntary statement which was recorded by us, we are of the view that this petition does not survive any further for consideration of this Court. (6). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that no further relief can be granted to the petitioner since Ms. Minakshi is major, above 18 years of age and having left the matrimonial home out of her free will and consent. We are consequently of the view that she cannot be compelled by giving any direction by this Court nor she can be forced to stay with the petitioner against her wishes. (7). The petition is accordingly disposed of. The statement of Ms. Minakshi is directed to be placed back in the sealed cover and the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to do the needful and place it on record.