ORDER : (U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.) : This habeas corpus writ petition presents peculiar facts and competing interests of the petitioner and one Rangidi Sai Sriya on one hand and the 6th respondent who is the father of the aforesaid girl on the other. 2. The petitioner’s case is thus: (a) The petitioner is a resident of Navavikas Centre, Vengala Rao Nagar, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District. He claims that Rangidi Sai Sriya is the daughter of the 6th respondent and both of them are residing in the same locality and they fell in love with each other. Even though his parents accepted for their marriage, the 6th respondent did not agree for the said proposal in spite of the request made by the petitioner and his elders. However, Rangidi Sai Sriya loved him and wanted to marry him even against the wish of her parents and other family members. His further case is that on 26.10.2023 at 10:00 hours both of them went to Janardhan Swamy Temple at Kandukur and married as per Hindu Rites and Customs in the presence of some of his family members and friends. (b) Later both of them went to house of his paternal uncle Sri Krishna Reddy at Kandukuru. Knowing these incidents, the 6th respondent started issuing threatening calls to the petitioner and his family members. Therefore, the petitioner and his wife Rangidi Sai Sriya went to 5th respondent on 27.10.2023 sought for protection. Respondent 3 advised Rangidi Sai Sriya to stay at women’s hostel, Kavali for a period of 2 days till the things are settled. However, to the utter surprise and shock of the petitioner, a false case was registered in Crime No.96/2023 against the petitioner on 31.10.2023 U/s 417, 420, 376, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(v) of SC ST POA Act on the complaint given by one Thrisha Gaddam on the allegation that the petitioner on the false promise of marriage, committed rape on her. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.11.2023. He moved bail application before Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore and same was dismissed on 23.11.2023. The petitioner is proposing to file another bail application. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.11.2023. He moved bail application before Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore and same was dismissed on 23.11.2023. The petitioner is proposing to file another bail application. The said complaint was filed in order to threaten the petitioner and somehow to compromise the matter before him and 6th respondent. However, his wife Rangidi Sai Sriya did not wish to go to her parents and she is residing in her maternal grandmother’s house. Despite pressure from her parents, she was not intending to go to them. She sent messages to petitioner’s sister Lakshmi Soundarya to take her back to matrimonial home. Petitioner’s father went to the house of the 6th respondent and requested them to send Rangidi Sai Sriya to their house but the 6th respondent refused to send his daughter to the matrimonial home. While so, petitioner came to know that the parents are trying to perform her marriage with some other person forcibly. Hence the writ petition to direct the 6th respondent to produce Rangidi Sai Sriya who is in his illegal custody. 3. The 4th respondent filed counter opposing the writ petition contending thus: (a) The enquiries of the police revealed that the antecedents that the petitioner is a resident of Vengalrao Nagar of Kavali Town. He came to know that one Rahana resident of Vengalrao Nagar living by doing tailoring work gave a complaint against the petitioner which was registered as Crime No.148/2023 U/s 417, 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The allegations are that earlier she married one Golla Macherla and they begot two children. Her husband died and taking advantage of her lonely position, the petitioner has deceived her on a false pretext of love and promise to marry her. As she was a lonely lady she accepted his proposal and he married her by tying the scared thread to her. Since then both are living together. Her children are treating him as father. (b) While so, the petitioner took an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and 10 Sovars of gold from her on the pretext of some requirement. Later, the petitioner stopped coming to her and when she informed to his father, he threatened her with dire consequences. On these allegations she lodged FIR and case is under investigation. (b) While so, the petitioner took an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and 10 Sovars of gold from her on the pretext of some requirement. Later, the petitioner stopped coming to her and when she informed to his father, he threatened her with dire consequences. On these allegations she lodged FIR and case is under investigation. (c) The 4th respondent in his counter stated that his enquiry further revealed that the petitioner went after another girl namely Gaddam Trisha of Vengalrao Nagar of Kavali who is studying degree in Sri Chaitanya College, Kavali. The petitioner on the pretext of love made a false promise to marry her and on one occasion when her parents went to Hyderabad and she was alone, he went to their home and forcibly committed rape on her. Subsequently he started threatening her and extorted money from her. She gave money on some occasions and also her gold ear studs to him. When she asked him to marry her, he made a false representation that he would marry her after he got job. When the matter was carried to parents of the petitioner, they at first agreed to perform the marriage but did not keep up their promise. In the meanwhile, she came to know that the petitioner has been living with Rangadi Sai Sriya. Therefore, again she went and enquired the parents of the petitioner. At that time they abused her and sent away. Hence the complaint. The 4th respondent stated that her complaint was registered as Crime No.96/2023 on 28.12.2023 and the matter is under investigation. The petitioner was arrested on 04.11.2023 and sent for judicial custody. In the counter it is further stated that during the course of investigation the statement of Rangadi Sai Sriya was recorded. She stated that she got acquaintance with the petitioner and they love each other but her mother admonished her and they planned to elope and marry. Accordingly, on 26.10.2023 both of them left their houses and thereafter the parents of the girl approached the police and informed that they would perform their marriage and on that both of them returned. Ultimately, the 4th respondent mentioned that the character of the writ petitioner is suspicious. 4. The 6th respondent also filed counter in similar lines. Accordingly, on 26.10.2023 both of them left their houses and thereafter the parents of the girl approached the police and informed that they would perform their marriage and on that both of them returned. Ultimately, the 4th respondent mentioned that the character of the writ petitioner is suspicious. 4. The 6th respondent also filed counter in similar lines. (a) He contended that the petitioner is habituated to trap innocent women in the locality and after having sexual intercourse with them, extort money from them for his vices. In that process he trapped their only daughter who was innocent to extort money through her. He contended that their daughter is not in illegal custody and in view of the bad character of the petitioner and as he was lodged in jail in connection with cheating another girl, they objected for their marriage and the writ petition is not maintainable. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. During the course of enquiry, we summoned the petitioner, 6th respondent and his wife and also, Rangidi Sai Sriya and enquired them individually in our chamber. The petitioner claims that he is an innocent person and at the instance of the 6th respondent, two false cases were registered against him to threaten him to withdraw from the life of their daughter. On the other hand, the 6th respondent and his wife claimed that the petitioner is an habitual cheater and he cheated many women in the locality on the pretext of love and after having sexual intercourse, used to extort money from them and leaving them to their fate. They claimed that the two cases which were registered against him are only a tip of iceberg which came to their knowledge and there were many more of such cases. While admitting that their daughter is a major, they submitted that she innocently fell in the trap of the petitioner and merely because she is a major she may not be left to her choice as her life will be spoiled if she is allowed to go with the petitioner. (c) During our enquiry the girl Rangidi Sai Sriya stated that she is a major and she loved the petitioner and married him against the liking of her parents and false cases were filed against the petitioner and she is not willing to go to her parents. (c) During our enquiry the girl Rangidi Sai Sriya stated that she is a major and she loved the petitioner and married him against the liking of her parents and false cases were filed against the petitioner and she is not willing to go to her parents. (d) It should be noted that initially the petitioner was in jail in connection with the criminal cases filed against him and later he obtained bail. 6. Be that as it may, in view of the claims and counter claims, pending our decision, we considered it apposite to direct the 4th respondent to admit the girl in NTR CSD & EW, Mahila Pranganam, Near Collector Bungalow, Guntur until further orders. 7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, Sri P. Ravikanth, learned counsel for the 6th respondent and Sri Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Special Government Pleader, representing the office of learned Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 5. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati argued that admittedly both the petitioner and the girl Rangidi Sai Sriya are majors and educates and therefore using their discretion they fell in love and wanted to marry each other and parents of the girl refused on lame pretexts and therefore both of them had married in a temple for which the parents of the girl objected. He argued that marriage is a matter of choice by two adults and parents or others cannot intervene. In that context, he placed reliance on Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192 . Learned counsel further argued that on knowing their marriage, at the instance of the 6th respondent, two false cases are foisted against the petitioner and now he got bail in one of the matters in which he was arrested and as the girl is not wishing to stay with her parents, treating their detention as illegal custody, the 6th respondent may be directed not to interfere with her affairs and she may be permitted to join the petitioner. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 9. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for 6th respondent Sri P. Ravikanth argued that his clients are not oblivious of the fact that their daughter Rangidi Sai Sriya is a major and therefore under law she has the right to use her discretion to decide her future in the matter of education, employment and also marriage and being parents, they can only give advice for her better future but they have no right to stifle or supplant her ideas or ideals with theirs. Learned counsel would submit, if she has chosen a virtuous person, the parents would not have objected on the ground of caste, economic status or other petty considerations. However, it is altogether a different situation where the petitioner is facing two criminal cases touching his marital status. Learned counsel vehemently argued that in Crime No.148/2023 of Kavali II Town PS the complainant therein made severe allegations that the writ petitioner knowing fully that she is a widow having two children, moved after her and on the promise that he would look after her and her children well, married her and obtained amounts from her from time to time and cheated her. Learned counsel further argued that in Crime No.96/2023 of Kavali II Town PS the allegations against the writ petitioner are that on the pretext of love and marriage the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the girl belonging to SC (Madiga) community and later cheated her. Referring to those complaints, learned counsel submitted that it is not known whether the petitioner is involved in any other cases and any complaints are pending against him. In such circumstances, learned counsel would emphasize, not only as the parents of the girl but also as sympathizers of the victims in the hands of the petitioner, the 6th respondent and his wife have moral right and responsibility, if not legal right to interdict their daughter from having conjugal relationship with the writ petitioner. Learned counsel argued that the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the daughter of the 6th respondent is not a valid one in the eye of law as it was not performed meeting the essentials of a valid Hindu Marriage. Learned counsel argued that the alleged marriage between the petitioner and the daughter of the 6th respondent is not a valid one in the eye of law as it was not performed meeting the essentials of a valid Hindu Marriage. He further argued that the daughter of the 6th respondents is not under illegal custody as even during the enquiry made by this Court she did not complain any ill-treatment by her parents except complaining about their objection regarding her marriage with the writ petitioner which is not without any valid reasons. He thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 10. The point for consideration is whether Rangidi Sai Sriya is under illegal detention of her parents and if so, whether writ of habeas corpus can be issued against them to produce her before this Court to handover her to the petitioner ? 11. POINT: Admitted facts are that the 6th respondent and his wife are the parents of the girl Rangidi Sai Sriya and they are residents of Vengalrao Nagar, Kavali Town in SPSR Nellore District. The petitioner is also a resident of Vengalrao Nagar of Kavali Town. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner and the girl Rangidi Sai Sriya are majors. While it is the case of the petitioner that both of them loved each other and when the 6th respondent and his wife did not agree for their marriage, they went and married in Janardhan Swamy Temple at Kandukur as per caste customs on 26.10.2023 and thereafter the 6th respondent and his wife started giving threats and got foisted two false cases against the petitioner and got him arrested in one such case and took away their daughter to their home much against her will, in oppugnation the contention of the 6th respondent is that their daughter is innocent and the petitioner who is habituated to cheat the women under the pretext of love, cast his eye on their daughter and somehow won over her by his gullible words and in the meanwhile two victims in the hands of the petitioner lodged report with the police of II Town, Kavali and in one such case he was arrested and sent for remand to judicial custody. It is also their case that they did not hold their daughter in captivity except advising her that the petitioner is a cheater and it is not apposite to marry him. 12. The law on the power of this Court to issue writ of habeas corpus on matrimonial issues is no more res-integra. In Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1625 the apex Court held thus: “12.xxxxxxx. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) Even in the early days of constitution came into force, the Apex Court had recognized the power of writ of habeas corpus to direct against not only the wrongful detention made by public authorities but also in respect of illegal detention by private persons. In the course of exercising such power in respect of matrimonial matters, the Apex Court made it clear that whether such detention amounts to wrongful detention or not is question of fact for the Court to decide in each case weighing the different circumstances and to decide the entitlement or disentitlement of the concerned petitioner. 13. A Division Bench of High Court of Madras happened to deal with habeas corpus writ petition in a matrimonial case in Palanisamy v. State, Angamuthu, 2009(1)CTC737 = MANU/TN/2435/2008. The petitioner therein claiming that he married one Usha, the daughter of respondents 2 and 3 on 05.09.2005 before Sub Registrar Office at Salem West, submitted that his wife wanted to continue her studies and hence she went to her parental home at Chennai where the respondents 2 and 3 detained her and were trying to perform marriage to her with another person without her consent and thus sought for habeas corpus. He claimed that he gave a complaint to the police on 03.09.2008 about the missing of his wife. He produced marriage certificate along with petition. In that context, the High Court of Madras observed thus: “2. We are disturbed by the number of Habeas Corpus Petitions filed, which are nothing but matrimonial matters described as Habeas Corpus Petitions. He claimed that he gave a complaint to the police on 03.09.2008 about the missing of his wife. He produced marriage certificate along with petition. In that context, the High Court of Madras observed thus: “2. We are disturbed by the number of Habeas Corpus Petitions filed, which are nothing but matrimonial matters described as Habeas Corpus Petitions. The parents who are disappointed with the choice made by their children, the men who claim to be the husbands on the basis of Registration Certificates, some of which we have found to be extremely suspect, come to Court claiming that wife is kept in illegal detention or the parents are keeping the spouse in illegal detention. If a man or a woman stays away from his/her spouse without a reasonable cause, the law provides for a remedy of the Application of restitution of conjugal rights. A man or a woman who has completed 18 years have the right to choose his/her partner. Whether the parents are satisfied with their choice or not they cannot file Habeas Corpus Petitions. But they do and request us to direct the concerned police to pursue these couples. We think the police should be better employed” Having thus observed, the High Court of Madras referred the judgment of Apex Court in Ghulam Sarwar v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1335 = MANU/SC/0062/1966 wherein it was held as “The Writ provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal restraints. It is inextricably inter-twined with the fundamental right of personal liberty. "Habeas Corpus" literally means "have his body". By this Writ the Court can direct to have the body of the person detained to be brought before it in order to ascertain whether the detention is legal or illegal. Such is the predominant position of the writ in the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.” Referring the above judgment and noting that Habeas Corpus can be issued to direct that the person detained be brought before the Court to ascertain whether the detention is legal or illegal and applying the said law to the facts before it, the High Court held that the wife and husband were living separately on their choice so that wife could pursue her studies and career, dismissed the writ petition with costs. (a) Thus the above judgment also shows that in matrimonial matters, writ jurisdiction can be employed to know whether the detention of a person is illegal or not so as to pass suitable orders. 14. In Smt. Varuna Singh @ Ashifa Thru Her Husband Mohd. Talib V. State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow, 2020:AHC-LKO:12792 (Habeas Corpus Petition No.20727 of 2020), the facts before High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow bench were that the petitioner presented Habeas Cropus petition for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to produce the corpus of the detenue, Miss. Varuna singh, D/o Respondent No.4 aged about 19 years, resident of Lucknow stating that the petitioner and said girl loved each other and they wanted to marry but it was opposed by respondent 4, the father of the detenue and hence the detenue left the house of her father without consent of the parents and she converted her religion and adopted Islam and thereafter both of them married. The petitioner produced a marriage certificate and prayed for relief. In the meanwhile, the father of the girl lodged FIR No.259/2019 U/s 363 IPC in Vibhuti Khand, PS at Lucknow against unknown persons alleging that his daughter aged about 17 years went to computer coaching centre on 12.04.2019 around 11-12 Noon but did not come back. During the course of enquiry the writ petitioner seems to have argued that the detenue was recovered by the police and her 164 Cr.P. C statement was recorded by the Magistrate before whom the girl did not support the prosecution case. It was also argued that the girl was detained illegally by her father and therefore she should be produced before the Court. The Govt. Pleader opposed the petition challenging the averments in the petition regarding the conversion of the girl and her marriage with the petitioner as false. (a) In the light of above claims and counter claims, a learned Judge of the Lucknow bench, referring to Palanisamy’s case (Supra 3), embarked upon the enquiry as to whether the girl was illegally detained by her father. Learned Judge has observed thus: “7.The detenue has not made any complaint to the police that she is in illegal custody of her parents. The petitioner herein has claimed that the detenue is in illegal custody. Learned Judge has observed thus: “7.The detenue has not made any complaint to the police that she is in illegal custody of her parents. The petitioner herein has claimed that the detenue is in illegal custody. Writ of Habeas Corpus at the instance of a man to obtain possession of a woman alleged to be his wife, should not be issued as a matter of course. It is a writ of right but not a writ of course especially when the man seeks assistance of the Court to regain the custody of a woman.” (Emphasis Supplied) 8. The Court must satisfy itself at least prima facie that the person claiming writ is infact the husband and further whether a valid marriage between him and a woman could at all have taken place. Further, it should also be ascertained whether the woman is in illegal custody or not.(Emphasis Supplied). A Muslim cannot marry a non-Muslim. Conversion for the marriage is not permitted unless a person has faith and belief in other religion, it cannot be said that he/she has converted. There is nothing on record which would demonstrate that the detenue has changed her faith and belief from Hinduism to Islam. 9. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is the most cherished weapon to human liberty. This writ is essentially an order of the superior court to set a person at liberty, who is being illegally detained, either by the State or by private persons. A writ of habeas corpus can only be issued when the detention or confinement of a person is illegal and/or without the authority of law.” (b) The Court ultimately held that the writ of habeas corpus is a festinum remedium and the power can only be exercised in a clear case and it will be inappropriate, in cases where the petitioner himself is charged with a criminal offence in respect of the very person for whose custody he demands the writ. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed. 15. Thus the above jurimetrical jurisprudence explicates that indeed a writ of habeas corpus can be issued in the domain of illegal detention by private persons and one such case is the detention of one of the spouses by the parents and nearest relations. There can be no demur in this regard. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed. 15. Thus the above jurimetrical jurisprudence explicates that indeed a writ of habeas corpus can be issued in the domain of illegal detention by private persons and one such case is the detention of one of the spouses by the parents and nearest relations. There can be no demur in this regard. However, writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a man to obtain possession of a woman alleged to be his wife, should not be issued as a matter of course. It is a writ of right but not a writ of course especially when the man seeks assistance of the Court to regain the custody of a woman. Since the relief of writ of habeas corpus is a festinum remedium (speedy remedy), such power can only be exercised in clear cases where the Court satisfied itself, at least prima facie that the person claiming writ is in fact the husband and further there is a valid marriage between him and the woman whose custody he claims for and she is in the illegal custody of some other persons. 16. Applying the above law when the claim of the writ petitioner is scrutinized, in para-4 of his writ affidavit he averred that on 26.10.2023 himself and Rangidi Sai Sriya married in Janardhan Swamy Temple at Kandukur as per caste customs. To this effect except filing paper copies of the photos showing their exchanging garlands and posing for group photo with some persons, the petitioner has not produced any authenticated material to show prima facie that there was a valid marriage between him and the girl. We are not oblivious of the fact that during our enquiry the girl Rangidi Sai Sriya has not disputed the factum of marriage and expressed her unwilling to stay with her parents and to go and lead conjugal life with the petitioner in spite of the criminal cases pending against him. However, the identical claim of the petitioner and the girl will not make their alleged marriage a valid one in the absence of cogent material before this Court and particularly, when a third party already lodged a police complaint claiming that the writ petitioner married her and cheated her by extorting money from her. So at the out-set, we are not convinced with the marriage of the petitioner and Sai Sriya even prima facie. So at the out-set, we are not convinced with the marriage of the petitioner and Sai Sriya even prima facie. Even assuming that there was some form of marriage between the petitioner and Sai Sriya, how far it is legally sustainable is an issue to be resolved by a competent Court in the light of claim of earlier marriage with the petitioner made by the complainant in Crime No.148/2023 which is under investigation. Ergo, merely because the petitioner and Sai Sriya are majors, on that ground alone, this Court cannot put a stamp of approval to their alleged marriage and consequent conjugal relationship in view of pending criminal cases against the petitioner wherein the matrimonial relationship of the writ petitioner and the victims / complainants is an issue. Those victims / complainants are not parties before us and any positive order in this writ petition in favour of the petitioner may adversely effect the complainants in those crimes and may also lead to multiplicity of the proceedings. 17. Then the alleged illegal custody of the girl in the hands of her parents is concerned, the 6th respondent outrightly denied the said allegation and clarified that the girl being their only daughter, they brought up her with all love and affection and gave full freedom in the matter of her education, choice of friends, mingling in the society etc., except making a protest against her proposal to marry the petitioner not because of his education, employment social status etc., facts but due to his involvement in two criminal cases and possibly in some other cases also. It must be said, during our enquiry also the girl did not make any complaint against her parents alleging that they ill-treated her in any manner except opposing her marriage with the petitioner. In that view, their objection cannot be viewed only through parental point but should be viewed in the larger interest of the victims in the two criminal cases also. Therefore, such an objection cannot be regarded as illegal custody to pass an order in favour of the writ petitioner. The judgment in Sakti Vahini (Supra 1) cited by the petitioner is of no avail to the petitioner. In that case Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of honour killings made by KHAP panchayats in certain States viz., Haryana, Punjab and U.P etc., issued some guidelines to prevent such heinous crimes. The judgment in Sakti Vahini (Supra 1) cited by the petitioner is of no avail to the petitioner. In that case Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of honour killings made by KHAP panchayats in certain States viz., Haryana, Punjab and U.P etc., issued some guidelines to prevent such heinous crimes. That is not the case here. (a) Thus at the out-set, there is neither cogent material before us showing a valid marriage between the petitioner and the girl Rangidi Sai Sriya nor there is an illegal custody or detention by her parents to invoke our plenary jurisdiction of writ of Habeas Corpus. Since the girl Rangidi Sai Sriya is lodged in NTR CSD & EW, Mahila Pranganam, Near Collector Bungalow, Guntur, pending orders of this Court, the 4th respondent shall forthwith restore her custody to her parents and they shall treat her with love, affection and give required freedom to her in the matter of pursuing her education and employpment. 18. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.