1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Smriti Sahai, learned counsel for the State of U.P.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-detenue, who had filed a writ of Habeas Corpus No. 18472 of 2020 (through her husband as the next friend), as she was allegedly in unlawful detention of the private parties.

3. The writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.10.2020 on the ground of alternative remedy of having a right to file a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "Act of 1955") for the restitution of conjugal rights.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant herein is that the learned Single Judge manifestly erred in law in dismissing the petition for Habeas Corpus on the ground of alternative remedy available under Section 9 of theof 1955 even though there was no dispute or matrimonial discord between the husband and the wife.

5. The remedy available under Section 9 of theof 1955 is for restitution of conjugal rights. It is available when either the husband or wife withdraw from the society of other without sufficient reasons.

6. The provisions of Section 9 of theof 1955 comes into play only when there is a matrimonial discord between the husband and wife and one of them refuses to discharge the matrimonial obligations.

7. In the case at hand, the appellant-detenue (wife) had filed the petition for Habeas Corpus through her husband as next friend against the relatives/private persons alleging that they are detaining her and she is in unlawful custody. She had voluntarily and with her own free will married with Ranjeet Soni and since both of them are major, her living with her husband namely Ranjeet Soni cannot be interfered with and she cannot be detained by any person against her wishes.

8. Thus, it is apparent that there is no matrimonial discord between the appellant-detenue and her husband and she had not claimed any relief against her husband. The writ for Habeas Corpus was filed by her seeking freedom from the illegal custody/detention of the private persons.

9. In view of the above, we are clearly of the opinion that the writ Court manifestly erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of alternative remedy under Section 9 of theof 1955, which do not stand attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. Accordingly, the order impugned is ex-facie unsustainable in law. Learned counsel for the State of U.P. instead of defending the order feebly accepts that the order is not tenable. In such circumstances, we do not even consider it necessary to issue any notice to the private respondents, as their appearance would not alter the legal position, as narrated above more so when the writ for Habeas Corpus was decided at the admission stage only after hearing the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is present today, in the absence of representation by the private respondents.

11. In view of the facts and circumstances as also the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 22.10.2020 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded to the writ Court for re-consideration on merits in accordance with law.

12. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.