S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD, Sri J. S. Sengar, the learned counsel who had filed his vakalatnama signed by Abhishekh Kumar singh on 21. 7. 2003 before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal. ( 2 ) SRI D. S. Misra, advocate who had filed his Vakalatnama, signed by Nivedita on 5. 5. 2003, putting in appearance on her behalf in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal has also been heard. ( 3 ) PERUSED the record. ( 4 ) THE writ petition giving rise to this special Appeal had been filed praying for a direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus requiring the respondents in the writ petition which included Dr. Kamesh Kumar Mishra, impleaded as respondent no. 2 to produce the alleged detenue, the petitioner, described as smt. Nivedita Singh wife of Shri Abhishekh kumar Singh, daughter of Dr. K. K. Mishra. ( 5 ) A further relief of a direction requiring the respondents not to interfere in the matrimonial life of the petitioner and allowing them to live peacefully was also claimed. ( 6 ) IT may be noticed that the writ petition giving rise to this appeal purports to have been filed by Smt. Nivedita described as wife of Sri abhishekh Kumar Singh and daughter of Dr. K. K. Mishra, impleaded as respondent No. 2. Abhishekh Singh has been described as the husband of Smt. Nivedita and the writ petition had been filed through him. ( 7 ) ABHISHEKH Kumar Singh had filed an affidavit sworn on 5. 3. 2003 in support of the writ petition in which it had been alleged that the father of Nivedita was an influential person of society and there was danger of Nivedita being murdered by her father and her relatives or forced to solemnize her remarriage with any other person. ( 8 ) IN paragraph no. 17 of the writ petition, what had been asserted was that Nivedita was an adult and she could not be detained by any person illegally against her will. However, apart from the fact that the brother-in-law and other family members had forcibly took nivedita inside the house, there is no allegation that Nivedita was being detained in wrongful custody by the respondent no. 2 against her will. However, apart from the fact that the brother-in-law and other family members had forcibly took nivedita inside the house, there is no allegation that Nivedita was being detained in wrongful custody by the respondent no. 2 against her will. ( 9 ) THE writ petition in the name of nivedita had been filed on the allegation that abhishekh Kumar Singh had married her. ( 10 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, an application had been filed by Nivedita supported by her affidavit sworn on 8. 7. 2003, in which it was prayed that the petition purporting to be filed by Nivedita, be dismissed. In paragraph no. 3 of the aforesaid affidavit, which was sworn before the oath commissioner of this Court it was asserted that the deponent nivedita daughter of Dr. K. K Mishra was not being detained in an unauthorized manner or against her wishes indicating further that she was living alongwith her parents as wished by her. ( 11 ) A counter affidavit sworn on 14. 7. 2003 in opposition to the writ petition was filed by Nivedita, denying the allegations made in the writ petition. In paragraph no. 8 of the aforesaid counter affidavit, reference was made to an affidavit filed by Nivedita in the civil Suit filed by Abhishekh Singh, in which it was claimed that she had not been married with Abhishekh Singh and was not being detained against her wishes and was further not being deprived of her liberty in any manner whatsoever. ( 12 ) A rejoinder affidavit was also filed by abhishekh Singh in which it was stated that on 7. 7. 2003, he had received a message orally from an intimate friend of Nivedita, whose name could not be disclosed to the effect that niveditas father and her family members were torturing her and she was not allowed to go out of the house and was continuously watched and kept in confinement and her parents were trying to settle her marriage afresh requesting that something should be done promptly. ( 13 ) THE learned Single Judge vide a detailed order, which is impugned in this Special appeal, has dismissed the writ petition indicating that in view of the pendency of the civil suit and the pendency of the criminal case based on the first information report lodged by Nivedita, where the alleged husband stood charged with a criminal offence in respect of the very person for whom the Habeas Corpus petition had been filed and the nature of the assertions made by Nivedita it was not a fit case for the issuance of a writ of Habeas corpus. ( 14 ) IT is not disputed that a case Crime no. 244 of 2003 under Section 366/506 I. P. C. is pending investigation. This case was registered on the basis of the first information report lodged by Nivedita. A Division Bench of this Court vide an interim order passed in Writ petition No. 2112 of 2003 dated 25. 4. 2003 has stayed the arrest of Abhishekh Singh as well as the co-accused until further orders providing, however, that the investigation shall go on in which the accused shall co-operate and make themselves available to the investigating officer whenever required. ( 15 ) IT is further not disputed that in the civil Suit filed by Abhishekh Singh, an ad interim injunction had been issued prohibiting the marriage of Nivedita anywhere else. A copy of the affidavit filed by Nivedita in the aforesaid civil suit (Original Suit No. 571 of 2003 )pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior division) City Jaunpur, had been filed wherein, the plaint allegations have been denied. In paragraph No. 19 of the said affidavit, it has been asserted that Nivedita was major and had never been detained against her wish reiterating that she had also filed an affidavit to this effect in the proceedings pending in the High court. ( 16 ) FROM what has been indicated herein above, it is apparent that Abhishekh Singh is himself charged with a criminal offence in respect of the person who is alleged to have been detained in an illegal manner and who is sought to be set at libeny. ( 16 ) FROM what has been indicated herein above, it is apparent that Abhishekh Singh is himself charged with a criminal offence in respect of the person who is alleged to have been detained in an illegal manner and who is sought to be set at libeny. It is further apparent that the said person had herself initiated criminal proceedings by lodging a first information report: against Abhishekh Singh and has also filed her own affidavit in the civil proceeding before the civil court of competent jurisdiction denying the assertions made by abhishekh Singh. ( 17 ) THE remedy of a writ of Habeas Corpus is available for providing an immediate relief from the illegal confinement or restraint but not for vindicating civil rights which required determination of disputed questions of fact. Further, even in a situation where in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding issuance of a writ of Habeas corpus a statement of the alleged detenue may be confined to a mere statement expressing that he / she is either being confined against his / her wishes or is not being so confined, is found to have some bearing on a pending civil or criminal case and where it has come in evidence that the alleged detenue has in categcri-cai terms indicated in a proceeding before the civil court of competent jurisdiction that he/ she is not being detained anywhere against his/ her will, it will not be appropriate to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus or even an order for the production of the alleged detenue in this court. ( 18 ) IN the present case taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record together with the various affidavits filed by Nivedita in their totality and further considering the pleadings contained in the writ petition and the facts noticed in the impugned order, we are not satisfied that sufficient ground can be said to have been made out justifying an interference in the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. ( 19 ) THIS special appeal, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. Special Appeal dismissed. . .