The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, presided over by Justice Sanjay Dhar, has held that a writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued to direct the production of an adult individual who is living with a partner of her own free will, even if the legal validity of their marriage is in dispute. Dismissing a petition filed by a father seeking the recovery of his adult daughter, the court clarified that a major individual’s voluntary residence with a chosen partner does not constitute illegal detention or an offence.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Parvaiz Ahmad Khan, filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking a writ to command state authorities and police to trace, secure, and produce his daughter before the court. He also requested an independent interaction between his daughter and the court to ascertain her wishes without influence.
According to the petitioner, his daughter had contracted a valid and subsisting marriage under Muslim Personal Law with one Yasir Altaf Khan. On April 16, 2026, she left her home for Chandigarh under the pretext of retrieving educational documents but subsequently ceased all communication with her family. Following a missing person report lodged by the father, police enquiries revealed that Respondent No. 5 claimed to have married the daughter.
Prior to the present petition, the daughter and Respondent No. 5 had filed a writ petition, WP(C) No. 1040/2026, before the Jammu Wing of the High Court seeking protection from alleged harassment by her family. In that proceeding, they submitted that they were majors of sound mind and had entered into wedlock on December 22, 2025, at the Arya Samaj Temple in Janipur, Jammu, after the daughter voluntarily converted. Upon examining their school certificates, Aadhar cards, marriage certificate, and recording their statements, the coordinate Bench on April 17, 2026, directed official respondents to ensure they faced no unjustified harassment and were provided protection. The writ court, however, expressed no opinion on the legal validity of the marriage and left it open for the family to challenge it before a civil court.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Before the High Court in the present Habeas Corpus petition, the father raised serious doubts regarding his daughter’s alleged religious conversion. He argued that in light of her pre-existing, subsisting marriage under Muslim Personal Law, her second marriage with Respondent No. 5 was legally invalid.
The petitioner urged the court to record his daughter’s statement afresh in a conducive environment free from coercion or undue influence, so that her free choice could be verified.
Court’s Analysis
Examining the record, the court observed that a coordinate Bench had already recorded the daughter’s statement in WP(C) No. 1040/2026 and permitted her to go with Respondent No. 5. The court noted that the petitioner failed to place any material on record to suggest that her previous statement before the coordinate Bench was made under coercion or undue influence. The court remarked that directing her to make another statement would indirectly amount to reviewing the earlier judicial proceedings, which is impermissible in law.
Addressing the scope and statutory purpose of a Habeas Corpus writ, the court emphasized:
“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.”
Evaluating the facts against this standard, the court held:
“In the present case, the material on record shows that the corpus is residing with respondent No.5 out of her own will and volition. 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 court further highlighted that the petition lacked any foundational allegation of unlawful restraint:
“In fact, it is not even being alleged by the petitioner in the present petition that the corpus has been detained in the circumstances which give rise to suspicion that an offence has been committed against her.”
Court’s Decision
The High Court affirmed that if the petitioner maintains grievances regarding the legal validity of the daughter’s marriage with Respondent No. 5, he remains at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before a civil court, as already granted in the previous writ order.
Concluding that the daughter’s voluntary cohabitation as an adult does not justify the issuance of a prerogative writ, the High Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus petition as being devoid of merit.
Case Details
Case Title: Parvaiz Ahmad Khan v. Union Territory of J and K and Others
Case No.: HCP No. 89/2026, CM No.(4398/2026)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
Date: 17.07.2026
