Madhya Pradesh High Court: Dismisses Habeas Corpus, Woman Free to Live With Husband

Home / News updates Free To Live With Husband: MP HC Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea; Woman Married Man Accused Of Sexually Exploiting Her As Minor X MP High Court: Habeas Corpus Not the Forum to Decide Marriage Validity MP High Court's Gwalior bench dismisses habeas corpus plea, holds a pregnant major who married by nikah is free to live with her husband, but clarifies the order doesn't validate the marriage. The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench has recently dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a man who alleged that his sister, a major, was being illegally detained by the very person who is facing criminal trial for sexually exploiting her during her minority, after the woman herself told the court that she wished to continue living with him. A Division Bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla was hearing a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Sachin Rajore, who claimed that respondent No. 5 had sexually exploited the corpus when she was a minor, and was accordingly facing a criminal trial. The petitioner's case was that even after the woman attained majority, she continued to be held in illegal detention by respondent No. 5. The corpus was produced before the court by Sub Inspector Jyoti Rajput of Police Station Cantt, Guna, pursuant to the habeas corpus proceedings, in keeping with the standard procedure followed in such petitions. Recording her statement, the court noted that the woman and respondent No. 5 had earlier filed an application under the Special Marriage Act, which was rejected after her parents raised an objection. Following this, she performed nikah with respondent No. 5, though she maintained that she had not accepted the Muslim religion and had not converted. The order records that "she does not know about the provisions of Mohammedan law and she does not know as to whether a muslim boy can marry an idol worshipper/fire worshipper or not, but she further stated that the validity of marriage is important for her." The corpus, the court noted, also refused to speak to her parents. The bench recorded that certain provisions of Mohammedan law were explained to the corpus in court, but she nonetheless insisted that she wished to continue living with respondent No. 5. The order also notes that she is currently eight months pregnant. The court observed that the corpus is undisputedly a major, aged about 19 years and 8 months, and framed the limited question before it: whether she was in illegal detention. It clarified that "the validity of marriage is not the scope of this jurisdiction," a line that runs through the entire order. Since the corpus had herself expressed her willingness to stay with respondent No. 5, the bench held that she would be allowed to live her life as per her wishes, "without commenting upon the validity of her nikah with respondent No. 5." The court, however, was careful to draw a clear line between permitting the corpus to reside with respondent No. 5 and endorsing the marriage. It clarified that although it had, "in view of the limited scope of jurisdiction," permitted the corpus to live with respondent No. 5, the order "shall not be treated as an order thereby validating the nikah." Any dispute over the marriage's validity, the bench said, would have to be examined separately by "the court of competent jurisdiction." With these final observations on record, the writ petition was accordingly dismissed. Advocate Vibhor Kumar Sahu appeared for the petitioner, Sachin Rajore, while Government Advocate C. P. Singh represented the State authorities, arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the petition. Case Title: Sachin Rajore v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others Date of Order: August 19, 2026 Bench: Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla