Court Dismisses Father’s Habeas Corpus Plea After Woman Confirms Voluntary Marriage; Says an Adult Cannot Be Forced to Live With Anyone Against Her Will
Jammu Oct 14: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking the recovery of his missing daughter, observing that an adult woman has the liberty to decide whom she wishes to marry and with whom she wants to live, even if her decision goes against the wishes of her parents.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the order after the woman appeared before the Court and stated that she had voluntarily married a person of her choice and was currently residing with her husband in Kishtwar.
During the proceedings, the woman categorically informed the Court that her marriage was solemnised out of her own free will and that she did not wish to return to her parental home.
After recording her statement, the Court examined whether there was any material to indicate that the woman was being illegally or unlawfully detained by her husband or anyone else.
The Court observed that the primary purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to secure the release of a person from illegal or unlawful detention. However, such a legal remedy cannot be used to compel an adult to live with or accompany another person against their wishes, even when the person seeking such relief is a parent.
The Court found no material suggesting that the woman was being held against her will or subjected to unlawful detention. In view of her statement and the circumstances placed before it, the Court found no grounds to grant the relief sought by her father.
Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition was dismissed, and the Court held that the woman was at liberty to accompany and reside with the person of her choice.
The order underscores the importance of an adult’s personal liberty and freedom to make decisions concerning marriage and residence. It also reiterates that parental objections alone cannot justify compelling a legally competent adult to live with someone against her wishes.
The ruling reinforces the principle that personal liberty and individual choice must be respected, provided there is no evidence of illegal detention or other unlawful conduct.(KNC)
