JUDGMENT : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Ghanshyam Yadav holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3 and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General appearing alongwith Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Staterespondents. 2. Pursuant to the rule nisi issued earlier, the petitioner no. 1 is present in Court who has been identified by Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel. 3. Learned A.G.A.I, on the basis of enquiry made from the petitioner no. 1, submits that she has stated that she is presently living with some of her relatives on account of a matrimonial discord. On a specific query, she has submitted that she is staying with her relatives on her own sweet will and without there being any threat or coercion. She has also stated that she does not wish to go back to her husband, i.e. petitioner no. 2, and that she desires to go back to her relatives from where she has come. 4. The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ and an extraordinary remedy. It is writ of right and not a writ of course and may be granted only on reasonable ground or probable cause being shown, as held in Mohammad Ikram Hussain vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1964 SC 1625 and Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate Darjeeling, (1973) 2 SCC 674 . 5. The necessary jurisdictional fact to be established for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus would be dependent on the applicant establishing a prima facie case that the detention is unlawful. 6. In a recent decision of this Court in Soniya and another vs. State of U.P. and others, Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.283 of 2020, decided on 18.02.2021, this Court has held that the remedy of a writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a person seeking to obtain possession of someone whom he claims to be his wife would not be available as a matter of course and the power in this regard may be exercised only when a clear case is made out. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid, rule nisi issued earlier is not required to be made absolute. It is accordingly discharged. 8. The writ petition stands accordingly dismissed. 9. The petitioner no. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid, rule nisi issued earlier is not required to be made absolute. It is accordingly discharged. 8. The writ petition stands accordingly dismissed. 9. The petitioner no. 1 would be at liberty to go back to the place from where she has come or wherever she desires. 10. The amount deposited pursuant to the earlier order may be released to the petitioner no. 1 upon due verification.