The Rajasthan High Court has held that a habeas corpus petition cannot be maintained when a major, educated individual voluntarily chooses to live with a partner and denies any illegal detention. The judgment reinforces the constitutional right to personal liberty and autonomy under Article 21, even in familial custody disputes.
The Verdict
The petitioner, father of a 22-year-old woman, failed to secure relief in his habeas corpus petition. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the corpus, being a major and educated woman, had voluntarily chosen to live with her partner and was not under illegal detention. The Court emphasized that personal autonomy of adults cannot be overridden by familial claims absent evidence of coercion or unlawful confinement.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, Ashok Kumar, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the production and custody of his daughter, Mst. 'M', alleging her unlawful detention by her partner, Balwant Singh. A Missing Person Report had been registered at Police Station Ahore in 2025, but no charges were filed against the partner. The petitioner claimed that his daughter was being held against her will and that the police had failed to act.
In response to the petition, the Court directed the production of the corpus before it. Upon appearance, Mst. 'M' stated she was 22 years old, had completed her 12th standard education, and understood her situation clearly. She affirmed that she was living with Balwant Singh by her own free will, was not subjected to any force or threat, and was not being detained illegally. She expressed no desire to return to her father’s custody.
The Court noted the absence of any criminal complaint or FIR against the partner, and no evidence suggesting coercion, abduction, or trafficking. The petition was therefore examined not as a criminal matter but as a civil dispute over personal choice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a habeas corpus petition can be entertained to compel the return of a major, mentally competent adult from a consensual live-in relationship, absent any proof of unlawful restraint or coercion.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the father, as a natural guardian, had a right to seek the return of his daughter under the doctrine of parens patriae. He contended that the failure of police to investigate the missing person report amounted to dereliction of duty and that the Court must intervene to protect a daughter from potential exploitation. He cited Section 97 of the CrPC and precedents where courts intervened in cases of alleged abduction of minors.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Additional Advocate General, submitted that the corpus was a major and had clearly expressed her voluntary choice. No evidence of illegal confinement existed. The State emphasized that habeas corpus is a remedy against unlawful detention, not a tool for resolving private family disputes. It relied on the principle that personal liberty includes the right to choose one’s partner and living arrangement.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by affirming that habeas corpus is a constitutional remedy under Article 21, designed to protect individuals from unlawful detention by the State or its agents. It is not a substitute for civil remedies in domestic disputes. The Court observed that the corpus was not detained by any state authority, nor was she held against her will by any private individual.
"She stated before us that she is live-in partner of Balwant Singh and is not under any illegal detention of him."
The Court placed decisive weight on the corpus’s own testimony, noting her age, educational background, and clear articulation of her choices. The Court held that the law does not permit paternal authority to override the autonomy of a major woman, even if the choice is socially or culturally disfavored.
The Court distinguished this case from those involving minors or persons of unsound mind, where the State has a duty to intervene. Here, the corpus was neither a minor nor incapacitated. The Court further noted that the absence of any FIR or complaint from the corpus herself undermined the petitioner’s claim of illegal detention.
The judgment reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s rulings in Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. and Sultana Mirza v. State of U.P., which recognized the right to choose a life partner as integral to personal liberty under Article 21. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s grievance, however genuine, did not meet the threshold for habeas corpus relief.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a clear precedent: habeas corpus petitions cannot be used to challenge consensual live-in relationships involving major individuals. Practitioners must now carefully assess whether a petition alleges unlawful detention by a state actor or private party, or whether it is merely a disguised family dispute. The burden lies on the petitioner to demonstrate coercion, abduction, or unlawful restraint - not mere disagreement with a loved one’s choice.
The ruling also reinforces that courts will not intervene in personal relationships absent concrete evidence of illegality. Lawyers representing parents in similar cases should consider alternative remedies such as civil suits for custody or mediation, rather than misusing constitutional writs. This decision may also discourage the misuse of habeas corpus in cases involving adult children in interfaith or inter-caste relationships, where societal pressure often leads to false allegations of detention.
The judgment does not address the validity of live-in relationships under the Domestic Violence Act or inheritance rights, but it firmly anchors the principle that personal autonomy prevails over familial control when the individual is a major and competent.
