Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. 1. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner one Arulprakasam has sought for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus alleging that one Dhanupriya fell in love with him; that she married him on 12. 2007 at Tirupathi; that she has been living with him for sometime; that thereafter, she was forcibly taken by the fourth respondent; that she is being kept under illegal detention by the fifth respondent who is her senior paternal uncle; that though a complaint was given to the first respondent police, they have not taken any steps to secure her, and under the circumstances, he was compelled to approach this Court with this petition. 2. She appeared before the Court in the last hearing along with her father. She was enquired. The matter was posted this day. This day, when the matter was taken up in Chambers, the alleged detenue Dhanupriya, her father, the petitioner and the respective counsel all were present. 3. According to her, she stayed with him, and he was also a neighbour, and it is true that she fell in love with him; but, it did not fructify, and the allegation as to the marriage between them was nothing but a tissue of falsehood, and he is making all his attempts in order to mar her life, and she is aged 24, and she is a graduate in medicine, and she is also employed in Venkateswara Medical College, Puducherry, and she is living with her parents, and since no marriage has taken place with him, she has no connection with him, but he has come forward with the false allegations. 4. In answer to the above, it is contended by the petitioner that they fell in love with each other, and thereafter, the marriage has taken place on 2. 2007 at Tirupathi; and that they have been living for sometime. He has produced the photographs along with the letters written by her. 5. The said Dhanupriya would reply that these letters were written by her when she fell in love with him, and the photographs were taken, but did not fructify in marriage, and as on today, she has no connection with him. 6. He has produced the photographs along with the letters written by her. 5. The said Dhanupriya would reply that these letters were written by her when she fell in love with him, and the photographs were taken, but did not fructify in marriage, and as on today, she has no connection with him. 6. After hearing both sides and in appraisement of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the relief asked for by the petitioner, cannot be granted for more reasons than one. First of all, she is a major aged 24. According to her, she fell in love with him, but the marriage has not taken place at all. Before this forum, no proof as to the marriage is placed. What are all placed namely the letters and photographs, are all admitted by the said Dhanupriya. But, according to her, the letters were written and photographs were taken when she fell in love with him, and they are not at all connected, and the marriage did not take place at all, and she is not ready and willing to go with him. Under the circumstances, there is no impediment for the petitioner to approach the necessary forum for appropriate relief if so advised as to the marriage alleged by him. Therefore, this habeas corpus petition deserves an order of dismissal, and accordingly, it is dismissed.