Pramit Jain v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 24 Dec 2025 · 2025:DHC:11965-DB
Vivek Chaudhary; Manoj Jain
W.P.(CRL) 4290/2025
2025:DHC:11965-DB
constitutional petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking production of a wife who voluntarily chose to live separately, emphasizing respect for individual autonomy and allowing the petitioner to seek other remedies.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(CRL) 4290/2025 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th December, 2025
W.P.(CRL) 4290/2025
PRAMIT JAIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Jain, Mr. Deepanshu Raheja and Mr. Binay Kumar Joshi, Advs.
VERSUS
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for State
WITH
Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocates
WITH
Insp. Ashwai Kumar, SHO, MS
Park
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT

1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 and petitioner, inter alia, seeks directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the respondents to produce his wife Ms. Radha Kumari before this Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and Ms. Radha Kumari, solemnized their marriage on 06.10.2025 near Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies, out of their free will and consent.

3. After the marriage, the couple, apprehending threats from Ms. Radha Kumari’s family, took temporary shelter at Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan. On 14.10.2025, during the early morning hours, family members of Ms. W.P.(CRL) 4290/2025 2 Radha Kumari forcibly intervened with police involvement, resulting in the illegal separation of the couple. The petitioner was assaulted and unlawfully detained, while Ms. Radha Kumari was taken away by her family.

4. Since then, the petitioner has been unable to freely contact or meet his wife, and her whereabouts have been concealed, giving rise to grave apprehension regarding her life and liberty.

5. Ms. Radha Kumari has joined the proceedings through video-conferencing and states that she is 16 years of age. She submits that she is presently residing with her sister in Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. She further states that she has voluntarily left the company of her husband and has chosen to live with her sister and does not want to go back to her husband.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon hearing the stand of wife of petitioner, seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach appropriate forum/ Court for seeking appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

7. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

8. Liberty as prayed is granted.

9. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. (VIVEK CHAUDHARY) JUDGE (MANOJ JAIN)

JUDGE DECEMBER 24, 2025 st/js