Father's Habeas Corpus Fails After Daughter's Statement Already Recorded by Co-ordinate Bench, J&K HC Rules

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed a father's habeas corpus petition after finding his adult daughter had freely chosen to live with her husband, her statement already on record before a co-ordinate bench.

Justice Sanjay Dhar, sitting singly at the Srinagar Wing of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking production of his adult daughter on 17 July 2026. The court found that the daughter — the corpus — had already made a voluntary statement before a co-ordinate bench of the same High Court, which had satisfied itself that she was a major acting of her own free will. Directing a fresh statement before this bench, the court held, would amount to an indirect review of those earlier proceedings, which is not permissible in law. The petition in Parvaiz Ahmad Khan v. Union Territory of J&K and Others, HCP No. 89/2026, was dismissed as being without merit.

The Father's Grievance and the Prior Writ Proceedings

The petitioner, Parvaiz Ahmad Khan, claimed his daughter had contracted a valid Nikah with one Yasir Altaf Khan in accordance with Muslim Personal Law, and that the said marriage was subsisting. On 16 April 2026, he alleged, the daughter left home on the pretext of collecting educational documents from Chandigarh and then stopped maintaining contact with her family. The petitioner lodged a missing report with the police. During the course of the police enquiry, it emerged that Respondent No. 5 was claiming to have contracted a second marriage with the daughter.

Before the habeas corpus petition could be decided, a parallel proceeding had already run its course. The daughter and Respondent No. 5 had jointly filed WP(C) No. 1040/2026 before the Jammu Wing of the same High Court. In that petition, they pleaded that they had entered into wedlock on 22 December 2025 at Arya Samaj Temple, Janipur, Jammu. They stated they were both of major age, of sound mind, and capable of entering into marital ties under law. They further pleaded that the daughter had voluntarily undergone conversion before the marriage. They sought police protection from harassment by the corpus's family members, including the petitioner.

The co-ordinate bench in WP(C) No. 1040/2026 recorded the statements of both writ petitioners and examined documents including school certificates, Aadhar cards, and the marriage certificate. Satisfied that both were majors and that the daughter was acting voluntarily, the bench disposed of that petition on 17 April 2026. It directed the official respondents to ensure no unjustified harassment was caused to the couple and to provide them police protection as and when sought. The bench expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the validity of the marriage, leaving it open to the family to challenge that question before a competent civil court.

What the Father Argued in the Habeas Corpus Petition

In HCP No. 89/2026, the petitioner raised two specific concerns. First, he expressed serious doubts about the alleged religious conversion of his daughter, contending that the conversion had not been genuine. Second, he argued that because the daughter's earlier Nikah with Yasir Altaf Khan was subsisting, the second marriage with Respondent No. 5 was illegal in any event. On these grounds, the petitioner sought a direction that the daughter be produced before the court and that her statement be recorded afresh in a conducive atmosphere, free from coercion or undue influence, so that her free choice could be independently ascertained.

Why the Court Declined to Issue the Writ

Justice Sanjay Dhar examined the settled position on the scope of a habeas corpus writ. The court stated that such a writ can be issued for production of a corpus only if the corpus appears to have been detained in circumstances giving rise to the commission of an offence, or if the corpus has been detained against her wishes.

On the facts, the court found neither condition was met. The material on record showed the daughter was residing with Respondent No. 5 of her own will and volition. The court observed that her marriage with Respondent No. 5 may or may not be valid, but once a corpus is a major who has made an informed choice to live with a person, her staying with that person does not amount to any offence. The court also noted that the petitioner himself had not alleged in the petition that the daughter was being detained in circumstances suggesting that an offence had been committed against her.

The more pointed reason for refusing the prayer for a fresh statement was the existence of the co-ordinate bench proceedings. The court observed that the daughter's statement had already been recorded by a co-ordinate bench, and on that basis she had been allowed to proceed with Respondent No. 5. The petitioner had brought no material before the court to persuade it that the statement recorded in WP(C) No. 1040/2026 was made under undue influence or coercion. In those circumstances, requiring the daughter to make another statement before this bench would “indirectly amount to reviewing the earlier proceedings,” which is not permissible in law.

The court also noted that the question of the marriage's validity — including the petitioner's concerns about the alleged conversion and the legality of a second marriage during a subsisting Nikah — is not a matter for habeas corpus jurisdiction. Liberty to challenge the validity of the marriage before a civil court had already been explicitly granted by the co-ordinate bench while disposing of WP(C) No. 1040/2026, and that avenue remained open to the petitioner.

Outcome

Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed HCP No. 89/2026 on 17 July 2026, finding it to be without merit. The court did not issue any writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner remains at liberty to pursue the validity of the marriage and the question of religious conversion before a competent civil court, as directed by the earlier co-ordinate bench order in WP(C) No. 1040/2026.