SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking production of his adult daughter, holding that she was residing with her husband of her own free will and that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be invoked when there is no illegal detention. The court also held that any dispute regarding the validity of her marriage must be decided by a competent civil court.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the order on July 17, 2026, dismissing HCP No. 89/2026 filed by Parvaiz Ahmad Khan.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Hussain Rashid, while none appeared for the respondents when the matter was heard.
Parvaiz Ahmad Khan had approached the High Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus directing the authorities to trace and produce his daughter before the court. He also requested that she be allowed to interact with the court in a free atmosphere so that her wishes could be independently ascertained.
According to the petition, the daughter had earlier contracted a valid Nikah with Yasir Altaf Khan under Muslim Personal Law and that marriage was still subsisting. The petitioner stated that on April 16, 2026, she left home on the pretext of collecting educational documents from Chandigarh but did not return or maintain contact with her family.
After lodging a missing report, the family allegedly learnt that she had married respondent No. 5.
The petitioner further contended that he had serious doubts about his daughter’s alleged religious conversion and argued that her second marriage was illegal because her earlier marriage had not been dissolved. He sought a fresh statement from his daughter before the High Court, claiming it should be recorded in a neutral atmosphere free from coercion or undue influence.
The court noted that the daughter and respondent No. 5 had earlier filed WP(C) No. 1040/2026 before the Jammu Wing of the High Court, stating that they had married on December 22, 2025, at an Arya Samaj Temple in Jammu after the woman had voluntarily converted her religion.
In that petition, they had sought protection from alleged harassment by her family. The High Court had recorded their statements and, by an order dated April 17, 2026, directed the authorities to ensure that they were not subjected to unjustified harassment while making it clear that it was expressing no opinion on the validity of the marriage. The court had also left it open to the woman’s family to challenge the marriage before a competent civil court.
Justice Dhar observed that the daughter’s statement had already been recorded by a coordinate Bench and there was nothing on record to suggest that it had been made under coercion.
The court held: “No material has been brought on record by the petitioner to persuade this Court to hold that the statement of corpus recorded by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court was made by her under undue influence or coercion.”
The judge further observed that directing the woman to make another statement before the court would effectively amount to reviewing the earlier proceedings, which was legally impermissible.
Explaining the scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction, the court held that such a writ can be issued only where a person is under illegal detention or is being confined against his or her wishes.
The order states: “A writ of Habeas Corpus can be issued for production of corpus only if it appears to the Court that the corpus has been detained in the circumstances which give rise to commission of an offence or that the corpus has been detained against his/her wishes.”
After examining the material on record, Justice Dhar concluded that the woman was residing with respondent No. 5 voluntarily.
“The material on record shows that the corpus is residing with respondent No.5 out of her own will and volition,” the court observed. “Her marriage with respondent No.5 may or may not be valid, but once the corpus is major and she has made an informed choice to live with respondent No.5, her stay in the company of the said respondent does not amount to any offence.”
The High Court noted that the petitioner had not even alleged that his daughter was being illegally detained or that any offence had been committed against her.
Holding that no case for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus had been made out, the court dismissed the petition as being without merit, while reiterating that the petitioner remains free to challenge the validity of the marriage before the appropriate civil court.
