The writ of Habeus corpus is provided in the constitution in Article 226. The definition of habeas corpus has not been in the constitution but has been interpreted in zillions of different cases in India. The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you shall have the body”. Mr Amit Kumar Pandey has not been allowed for this writ as he had not been illegally and unauthorizedly detained provided in the case, Smt. Astha Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.[WPHC/13/2021] through the division bench led by Mr Justice Arup Kumar Goswami and Mr Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal in the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
The facts of case are Shri Amit Kumar Pandey has been produced before this Court though this Court has not directed for his production. The petitioner was seeking directions to the respondents to free her husband from the crutches of respondents stating enter earlier that she has married Shri Amit Kumar Pandey but the respondents have illegally detained him without the authority of law. The petitioner in person had submitted that Shri Amit Kumar Pandey was her legally wedded husband and has been detained unauthorisedly and without the authority of law by respondents specifically No. 5 to 7. The petitioner argued that the husband was willing to stay with her and she wanted to continue his treatment as he was unwell. But the petitioner wants to stay with him.
Shri Amit Kumar Pandey was present in the court and he submitted that though he was married to the petitioner but due to some objectionable behaviour read by the petitioner he was not ready and willing to stay with the petitioner and wanted to stay with his parents. He clearly stated that he was not willing to meet his wife, the petitioner. He submitted that he is staying with his parents out of his free will and there is no pressure or force applied by the respondent No. 5 to 7 to stay with them as was submitted by the petitioner.
The High Court decided that “We are of the considered opinion that it is not the case where Shri Amit Kumar Pandey has been illegally and unauthorizedly detained by respondents No.5 to 7 and we hereby close the present Habeas Corpus petition accordingly. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail other remedies available under the law for redressal of her grievances, if any. It is also made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on rights of the parties.”
The court closed the writ petition accordingly.
Judgement reviewed by- Pranav Vyas.