7 min readVadodaraUpdated: Aug 25, 2026 03:42 PM IST
They had once lived as neighbours in the same society in Kutch. They belonged to different faiths, but they fell hopelessly in love.
So they decided to sign a live-in relationship agreement – more on this later – and to begin building a life together, away from their homes and families. She was 21 years old and was completing her graduation; he was 23, and worked as a driver.
Then came the ‘missing person’ complaint, the intervention by police, and the couple’s forced separation. The woman was placed in a women’s protection home in Kutch.
They fought to get back with each other, and the journey went through police stations, lawyers, and the judiciary. The male partner moved the Gujarat High Court with a habeas corpus petition, which is a formal legal request asking for an order to a person who is detaining someone to bring them before the judge and prove the detention is lawful.
On Monday (August 24), the woman, who is eight months pregnant, told the Gujarat High Court that she wanted to return to the man she had chosen. The couple were expected to be reunited on Tuesday (August 25).
The petitioner had expressed apprehension that the couple would face difficulty in getting back together – the Division Bench of Justices Sangeeta K Vishen and U T Desai directed the police to ensure that the woman was allowed to join the petitioner after following the requisite procedure “without any problem”.
Given the woman’s fragile medical condition, the High Court interacted with her in a virtual hearing. The woman told the court that she wished to return to her partner and that her decision was being made “voluntarily, without force or coercion”.
Story continues below this ad
“The Bench has interacted with the corpus and she has expressed her desire to join the petitioner,” the court recorded in its order on Monday. “It is also informed by the corpus that the statement is made on her own volition without any force or coercion,” the court said.
It added: “In view of the above and respecting the wish of the corpus, we allow her to join the petitioner.”
The couple’s live-in agreement, and their elopement
Advocate Keval Brahmbhatt, who represented the man in court, said the couple had faced stiff opposition from the woman’s family and had therefore decided to elope.
“They were neighbours and knew each other while living in the same society. Despite belonging to different faiths, they were two adults who fell in love and decided to live together. The Constitution, of course, guarantees the freedom of choosing one’s partner,” Brahmbhatt told The Indian Express.
Story continues below this ad
The couple moved to Banaskantha in June this year to begin living together, Brahmbhatt said.
They signed a live-in agreement, also known as “maitri karar” in Gujarati – a non-formal agreement where two consenting adults enter into a contract to live together like a married couple without legally marrying.
A maitri karar is executed on a stamp paper. The karar does not have the legal sanctity of marriage, but it is an old institution in Gujarat, and generally has social sanction. In the present case, Brahmbhatt said, the HC considered the live-in agreement placed on record to allow the woman to join her partner (the petitioner).
Police took her away, and he was forced to move court
The couple’s decision to live together drew strong opposition from the family of the woman. According to Brahmbhatt, within two days of the couple leaving to live together, the woman’s family lodged a missing complaint. Police got in touch with the couple and called them to the police station.
Story continues below this ad
“They appeared before the police with documents, including their school leaving certificates to establish both their ages. They also produced their live-in relationship agreement and asserted that, as adults, they had the right to choose their partners,” Brahmbhatt said.
But even then, he said, “the woman was forcibly separated from him (her partner), even though she did not want to return to her family. She was taken away and eventually placed at the Mahila Kalyan Kendra in Kutch.”
Brahmbhatt said the man first approached the police and later submitted a representation to the District Superintendent of Police, seeking to be reunited with his partner.
But when no action was taken, he moved the Gujarat High Court in August with a habeas corpus petition.
Story continues below this ad
Given she was 8 months pregnant, HC spoke to woman virtually
When the matter first came up before the court on August 17, Brahmbhatt told the Bench that the woman was eight months pregnant and had been taken away from her partner. He submitted that she was not inclined to join her parents and had been lodged at the Mahila Kalyan Kendra.
The case acquired particular urgency because of the advanced stage of the woman’s pregnancy. The state informed the court that the woman had been admitted to hospital after she complained of weakness.
The court noted in its order that doctors had advised admission to hospital, and had cautioned that travelling could pose a risk to her health. So instead of insisting on her physical appearance, the Bench gave the matter priority and directed that she should join the next hearing virtually.
The woman joined the proceedings virtually on Monday. A police officer and the manager of the Mahila Kalyan Kendra were present with her during the hearing. The manager informed the court that she was eight months pregnant, receiving medical assistance, and was doing fine. The judges then spoke to the woman directly.
Story continues below this ad
Brahmbhatt said that the conversation settled the central question in the case. “She clearly expressed her desire to join her partner in a free atmosphere. The Bench spoke in detail about the consequences of choosing to return to her partner, and she said she was sure she wanted to join him.
“A separate conversation also happened with the petitioner, and he orally assured the court that when the couple decide to marry in the future, they would do so in accordance with the procedure established by law,” Brahmbhatt said.
