The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 includes the autonomy of a major woman to choose her marital residence, even against familial opposition. This judgment decisively rejects the use of habeas corpus as a tool to enforce familial control over adult women in marital disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bharat Kumar, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that his wife, Mst. 'S', a 23-year-old educated woman, was being illegally detained by her parents - respondents Nos. 4 and 5 - after their marriage. The petition claimed she was being held against her will and denied freedom to live with her husband.
Procedural History
- The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking immediate release of the corpus through habeas corpus.
- The Court directed production of the corpus before it for personal examination.
- The State and police respondents filed responses denying unlawful detention.
- The corpus was produced in court and examined in chambers by the Bench.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the immediate release of Mst. 'S' from alleged illegal custody and an order directing her to be allowed to live with him.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the detention of a major, educated woman by her parents, following her voluntary marriage, constitutes illegal confinement under habeas corpus law, or whether her expressed desire to live with her husband negates any claim of unlawful restraint.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the corpus, being a major woman with secondary education, was capable of making an informed decision about her residence. He relied on Shakti Vahini v. Union of India to assert that any interference by family members in the marital choices of adult individuals violates the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. He contended that the parents’ actions amounted to custodial deprivation, warranting habeas corpus relief.
For the Respondent
The respondents, including the State and the parents, argued that the corpus was temporarily staying with them for her safety and well-being, and that her marriage was not fully consensual. They claimed the petition was an attempt to circumvent family mediation and that the Court should not interfere in domestic arrangements without clear evidence of coercion.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that the corpus was not a minor, nor was she shown to be mentally incapacitated. Her educational background and clear articulation of her wishes demonstrated her capacity to make autonomous decisions. The Bench noted that the corpus explicitly stated she was happily married and wished to live with her husband.
"The corpus Mst. 'S' is a major educated lady understanding her well-being quite well, she is free to live at a place of her own choice."
The Court rejected the notion that familial disapproval or concern could justify detention, even if framed as protective custody. It held that the right to choose one’s spouse and residence is intrinsic to personal liberty under Article 21. The Court distinguished this from cases involving minors or persons with diminished capacity, where parental authority may be recognized. Here, the corpus’s voluntary statement rendered any claim of illegal detention legally unsustainable.
The Court further observed that the State’s role is not to enforce familial preferences but to protect individual autonomy, especially when the individual is capable of expressing it clearly.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that a major woman’s voluntary expression of desire to live with her husband overrides any claim of illegal detention by family members. The corpus was directed to be free to reside with the petitioner, and the State was ordered to ensure her safe transit.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Autonomy Trumps Familial Control
- Practitioners must now argue that habeas corpus cannot be invoked to restrain a major adult woman who clearly expresses her wish to live with her spouse.
- Courts will prioritize the corpus’s own testimony over third-party allegations of coercion unless corroborated by independent evidence.
Burden of Proof Shifts to Detaining Parties
- When a major woman states she is not detained and wishes to leave, the burden shifts to the respondents to prove coercion or incapacity.
- Mere familial opposition, without evidence of physical restraint or threat, is insufficient to sustain a detention claim.
Protection Must Be Proactive, Not Restrictive
- The State’s duty is to facilitate the corpus’s safe movement, not to detain her for "her own good."
- Police must provide escort or protection upon court order - not to confine, but to enable freedom.
