Judgment :- (PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenue Sangeetha wife of Ramesh before this Court and to set her at liberty.) P.D. Dinakaran , J. The petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition to direct the respondents herein to produce the body of his wife, the detenue Sangeetha from unlawful detention of the third respondent, the father of the detenue, and for delivery of the said Sangeetha to him. 2. Pursuant to the notice issued in this petition, the detenue was produced before us and we personally examined the detenue, the petitioner as well as third respondent, who is the father of the detenue. 3. The petitioner has studied up to 12th standard and has established a tailoring shop and is living with his parents. It is not in dispute that the detenue is a major. The detenue is able to understand the pros and cons of her choice to live with the petitioner. It is a common case of the petitioner and the detenue that they married on 12.8.2005 at Kolanjiyappar Temple at Virudhachalam in the presence of the friends and well wishers, as also stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of this petition. 4. The detenue, however, in clear terms stated that she is not willing to join with the petitioner and she wants to go with her father, the third respondent herein, on her own volition. 5. It is well settled proposition in law that the writ of habeas corpus issues not only for release from detention by the State but also for release from private detention. At Common Law a writ of habeas corpus was available to the husband for regaining the custody of his wife if she was wrongfully 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 circumstances may exist either entitling 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 circumstances may exist either entitling or disentitling a husband to this remedy. 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 the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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 fact can be tried and the writ of habeas corpus is probably not demanded in similar 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, vide Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P., (1964) 5 SCR 86 . 6. In the present case the detenue, in clear terms stated that she is willing to go with her father, the third respondent, on her own volition. 7. Under such circumstances, particularly because of the undisputed fact that the detenue is a major and appears to have taken the decision of going with her father, the third respondent, on her own volition and in sound mind, we are of the considered opinion that she is at liberty to decide her future in her own accord, and the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.