Allahabad High Court Rules Habeas Corpus Cannot Be Used to Trace Absconding Husband in Maintenance Case
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a legal method to locate or compel the appearance of a husband who is avoiding court warrants in a maintenance case.
A division bench comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi dismissed a petition filed by Sangita Yadav, who had approached the High Court seeking directions to trace, arrest, and produce her husband before the court authorities.
The husband was reportedly absconding and had not complied with warrants issued against him in connection with the payment of maintenance.
The case arose from an order passed in January 2021 by the family court in Azamgarh, which had directed the husband to pay maintenance to his wife and their daughter.
Despite the court’s order, the husband allegedly failed to pay the required maintenance amount, and his whereabouts remained unknown.
As a result, the family court had issued warrants to secure his presence, but the husband continued to evade the legal process.
Facing difficulty in enforcing the maintenance order, the wife filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court.
In her plea, she requested the court to issue directions to the state authorities to trace and produce her husband either before the High Court or before the Principal Judge of the family court in Azamgarh.
She further prayed that once her husband was produced, he should be placed in the custody of the family court so that appropriate legal steps could be taken for the recovery of the pending maintenance dues.
However, in its order dated March 25, the High Court held that a writ of habeas corpus is meant to secure the release of a person who is illegally or unlawfully detained.
It cannot be used as a legal tool to compel the presence of a person who is absconding or deliberately avoiding court proceedings in a maintenance matter.
The bench clearly observed that the responsibility to secure the presence of the husband lies with the concerned family court.
The family court has the authority to adopt all necessary coercive measures available under law, such as issuing warrants or initiating other legal proceedings, in order to ensure compliance with its orders regarding payment of maintenance.
Accordingly, the High Court refused to grant the relief sought by the petitioner and dismissed the habeas corpus plea, emphasising that such petitions cannot be misused for purposes beyond their legal scope.
The ruling reinforces the principle that while courts provide remedies to ensure enforcement of maintenance orders, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be invoked merely because a person is evading court warrants in civil or family disputes.
