ORDER : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Giri Babu Marthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General-II, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. The petitioner, who claims to have married the alleged detenu, by name Chetana, filed the present writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the alleged detenu before this Court. 3. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition show that while the petitioner was working as a Lecturer in RVPU College, Yadgir District, Karnataka, he used to give tuitions to the alleged detenu. During that period, the alleged detenu fell in love with him and requested him to marry her. As they belong to different castes, the petitioner advised her that marriage between them may not be proper. However, at the insistence of the alleged detenu, he married her at Seetharama Swamy Temple, Macherla on 10.09.2020 in the presence of elders in his family. But, later, on 20.09.2020, the paternal uncle of the alleged detenu, who is working in Police Department, came and forcibly took her away from his parents’ house situated at Ganapavaram Village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District, on the ground that her parents wanted to see her. Thereafter, she was not sent back. When the petitioner went to the house of her parents, he found the doors locked. Though a report was lodged with the police, no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed seeking the aforementioned relief. Along with the petition, the marriage photographs of the petitioner and the alleged detenu are filed. 4. When the matter was taken up on 08.03.2021, Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda stated that he received instructions that the alleged detenu is presently in Gulbarga in connection with some medical issues, and sought time to make an effort to trace her and get her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 5. Accordingly, the statement of the alleged detenu under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Yadgir, Karnataka, on 18.03.2021, and the same is filed along with Memo dated 20.03.2021. 6. In the said statement, the alleged detenu stated as follows: “I was a student of R.V. College Yadgir for the 2019- 20 batch. Accordingly, the statement of the alleged detenu under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Yadgir, Karnataka, on 18.03.2021, and the same is filed along with Memo dated 20.03.2021. 6. In the said statement, the alleged detenu stated as follows: “I was a student of R.V. College Yadgir for the 2019- 20 batch. Ravipati sir was the Physics Lecturer of the R.V. college. We do not have any kind of relationship with each other. One day, I had gone to Hyderabad to attend friend’s function. From the function, he had taken me on his bike by force. He has forced me to take marriage with him and he had taken photos of the marriage by force. Based on those photos, he had black-mailed me. I came to know that missing case has been done by my parents. The Yadgir woman police have traced and brought me back to my parents’ house. I do not have any kind of relationship with Ravipati sir. Everything is happened by force.” 7. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the alleged detenu categorically stated that she does not have any relationship with the petitioner and the petitioner took her away against her will, forced her to marry him and blackmailed her on the basis of the marriage photographs taken by force. It is also clear from her statement that the Yadgir women police brought her to the house of her parents. It is submitted that the alleged detenu is presently living with her parents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the alleged detenu was taking tuitions with the petitioner, she fell in love with the petitioner and requested him to marry her. As they belong to different castes, the petitioner was not willing for the said proposal. However, at the instance of the alleged detenu, their marriage took place. He contends that the photographs filed along with the petition would clearly indicate that the marriage took place voluntarily and that there was no threat or coercion. 9. As they belong to different castes, the petitioner was not willing for the said proposal. However, at the instance of the alleged detenu, their marriage took place. He contends that the photographs filed along with the petition would clearly indicate that the marriage took place voluntarily and that there was no threat or coercion. 9. Having regard to the contents of the statement of the alleged detenu recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she categorically denied any relationship with the petitioner, and in view of the fact that she is living with her parents on her own accord, the question of issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus, as sought by the petitioner, does not arise. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.