Parents’ concerns cannot override adult’s choice of life partner: Allahabad High Court

Why court granted protection

The court was hearing a habeas corpus application in which it had earlier directed the state and the woman’s father to produce her before it. A habeas corpus plea requires a person under arrest or in detention to be brought before a judge so the court can decide if the detention is legal.

During a personal interaction with the judge, the woman stated that she was born in 2008 and is an adult. She told the court that she had studied up to Class 10 and had married voluntarily.

According to the order, she stated that the marriage had been solemnised of her own free will and without any coercion, undue influence or pressure. She also expressed a clear desire to live with her partner as his wife in their matrimonial home.

Justice Sandeep Jain found that nothing in the woman’s behaviour suggested that her decision to marry the man was the result of coercion or unlawful inducement.

The court also interacted with her husband, who confirmed the marriage and said he was willing to live with her as her husband. Her father, though aggrieved by his daughter’s decision, admitted that she was an adult.

The judge found that her statement was “clear, categorical and consistent” and that nothing on record or in her behaviour suggested that her decision to marry was the result of coercion, threats, undue influence or unlawful inducement.

“Once a person attains majority, he or she is ordinarily entitled to make an independent choice with regard to the manner in which such person wishes to lead his or her life, including the choice of a spouse,” the court said, adding that such a choice cannot be dictated or substituted by the wishes of the parents or other relatives.

The court emphasised that the right to choose a partner is connected to personal liberty and dignity, and the state authorities must respect such freedom, subject to the requirements of law.

Observing that the woman was an adult exercising her free will, the court said she could not be compelled to return to or remain in the custody of her parents against her wishes. It therefore set her at liberty to go with him to a place of her choice. “No person, including her parents or relatives, shall interfere with the lawful exercise of her choice or subject her to any threat, coercion, intimidation or harassment on account of her decision to marry and reside with the petitioner,” the judge said.

The court directed the police to safely escort the couple to their preferred destination and ensure no obstruction was caused to their departure.