The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a man seeking the release of his adult partner from her parental home, ruling that an adult daughter living with her mother and brother does not constitute illegal detention. The division bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a routine measure or as a device to obtain judicial endorsement for a live-in relationship. The court emphasized that the basic limitation of the writ requires a clear finding of unlawful confinement, which was entirely absent in this case.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mogal Shuaibulla Baig, approached the High Court by filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He sought the release of a 22-year-old woman—the daughter of respondent No. 3 and the brother of respondent No. 4—with whom she resides in her parental home. The petitioner alleged that the woman was being kept in illegal detention by her mother and brother against her will.
Arguments of the Parties
Sri Y. Swaroop Sai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner and the alleged detenue were both majors who shared a mutual relationship of free will and consent, wishing to continue their lives together. To support this contention, the petitioner annexed photographs of the couple (marked as Ex.P2) along with copy logs of WhatsApp messages exchanged between them (marked as Ex.P5). Based on these materials, the petitioner contended that the woman was being forcefully restrained by her family and sought her production before the court.
The Court’s Analysis
The bench examined the submitted photographs and WhatsApp chat transcripts and concluded that they failed to establish any case of illegal confinement. The court noted that the messages did not show that the family members were detaining the woman against her wishes, nor did they indicate that she had expressed any desire to leave her parental home.
The court observed:
“There is nothing on record even prima-facie that living of the detenue with the mother and brother in the parental house is against her will amounting to an illegal detention.”
Addressing the legal standards governing the writ of habeas corpus, the court referenced the Supreme Court of India’s ruling in Home Secretary (Prison) v. H.Nilofer Nisha (2020) 14 SCC 161. The bench pointed out that while the scope of habeas corpus has expanded to cover parental detention of a spouse or child custody matters, the petitioner in this case was not the woman’s spouse. Citing the limitations highlighted in the precedent, the court noted:
“the Court, before issuing any writ of habeas corpus must come to the conclusion that the detenu is under detention without any authority of law.”
The High Court further observed that a daughter living in her parental home with her mother and brother cannot ordinarily be construed as being under illegal detention unless a exceptionally strong case is made out.
The bench also addressed the petitioner’s claim regarding their live-in relationship, distinguishing it from the precedent in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018) 16 SCC 602, which involved a married couple where the husband was under the legal marriageable age of 21. While Nandakumar referenced Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368 to safeguard individual choices under Articles 19 and 21, the High Court clarified that the legislative recognition of live-in relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is strictly a protective measure for women.
The court stated:
“The object of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in our view, in such recognition, cannot be to encourage live-in relationship nor to transgress any valid legal framework.”
The bench strongly criticized the filing of the petition, remarking:
“Filing of the present writ petition appears to us to be a device adopted to have a seal and signature of this Court on the living in relationship.”
The Court’s Decision
The High Court declined to invoke its writ jurisdiction, stating that summoning the woman to court on bald allegations would violate her own personal liberty and right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Concluding the judgment, the court ruled:
“A Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in a routine manner for production of corpus of a person in Court. Reasonable grounds must be shown. Writ of Habeas Corpus though a writ of right its not a writ of course.”
The Writ Petition was accordingly dismissed. The court made no order as to costs, while leaving it open for the petitioner to seek other appropriate legal remedies as may be available under the law.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mogal Shuaibulla Baig v. The State of A.P., & 3 others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 16987/2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta
Date of Judgment: 29.06.2026
