Uttarakhand High Court has made a jaw-dropping decision, declining to issue a writ of habeas corpus in favor of a distressed husband who sought the return of his wife. Instead, the court shockingly granted permission for the married woman to continue living with her alleged "friend" of her own free will.

The matrimonial saga began in 2012 when the petitioner and his wife exchanged vows, bringing two beautiful children into the world. However, in August 2022, the wife made a visit to Faridabad to see her parents but mysteriously failed to return to her matrimonial home.

Growing increasingly concerned about his wife's well-being, the petitioner suspected foul play, accusing respondent no. 9, purportedly a close friend of his wife, of unlawfully detaining her. Seeking justice, the distraught husband turned to the High Court, filing a writ petition demanding the issuance of a habeas corpus writ to bring back his missing wife.

The court, keen to get to the bottom of the matter, ordered the wife's presence for the proceedings. To everyone's astonishment, she stood before the Bench and shockingly revealed that her decision to abandon her husband was due to his alleged mistreatment. She adamantly expressed her unwillingness to reconcile and disclosed that she willingly chose to reside with her enigmatic "friend."

In response, the petitioner's legal counsel vehemently refuted the wife's allegations, branding them as baseless and without merit. However, the court, faced with the wife's steadfast claim of voluntary association with respondent no. 9, astonishingly refused to grant any relief to the desperate husband.

Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit, constituting the Division Bench, delivered the unexpected verdict, stating, "While the allegations made against the petitioner are noteworthy, the wife herself has clearly stated that she is residing with respondent no. 9 of her own free will. Thus, we find ourselves unable to pass any further orders."

Consequently, the husband's plea was shockingly dismissed, leaving him in a state of disbelief and further deepening the mystifying nature of this matrimonial dispute.

Case No.: HABC No. 18 of 2022
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Mr. Rakesh Joshi & Mr. Pankaj Joshi, Advocates