The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that habeas corpus petitions cannot be weaponized to resolve private family custody disputes involving adult individuals who demonstrate clear, voluntary intent to live with a parent. This ruling reinforces the constitutional primacy of personal autonomy over familial claims, even when those claims are framed as detentions.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Tilok Ram, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the production and custody of his adult daughter, Mst. 'L', alleging she was being unlawfully detained by third parties. The corpus, aged 26 and a graduate in Arts, was produced before the Court as directed.
Procedural History
- The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writ of habeas corpus.
- The Court directed the production of the corpus to ascertain her status and意愿.
- The Investigating Agency complied, and the corpus appeared before the Bench in person.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the immediate release of his daughter from alleged unlawful confinement and her custody under his care.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a habeas corpus petition can be maintained to enforce parental custody over an adult, consenting individual who asserts her right to live with the petitioner of her own free will.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the corpus was being held against her will by unknown persons and that her liberty was being infringed. He relied on the foundational purpose of habeas corpus to prevent unlawful detention, citing ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla to emphasize the Court’s duty to protect personal liberty.
For the Respondent
The State contended that no illegal detention existed. The police had no record of any complaint or FIR against any person for confinement. The State emphasized that the corpus, being a major, had the legal capacity to make autonomous decisions regarding residence and association.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of habeas corpus as a remedy for unlawful restraint, not a mechanism for resolving civil disputes over residence or familial preference. The corpus, a 26-year-old woman with a bachelor’s degree, was fully capable of expressing her will. Her unambiguous statement - "I was not in illegal detention" and "I want to go and live with my father" - was decisive.
"She has stated before us that she is 26 years of age... she had gone with Hanuman Ram of her own free will. She further stated that she wants to go and live with his father, who is the petitioner."
The Court held that the mere assertion of parental custody, without evidence of coercion, abduction, or unlawful confinement, does not trigger the jurisdiction of habeas corpus. The principle of personal autonomy under Article 21 overrides familial claims when the individual is a major and mentally competent. The Court distinguished this from cases involving minors or persons of unsound mind, where parental interest may justify intervention.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that habeas corpus cannot be invoked to enforce parental custody over an adult who voluntarily expresses a desire to live with them. The corpus was directed to be handed over to her father, not as a remedy for detention, but as an affirmation of her right to choose.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Habeas Corpus Is Not a Custody Remedy
- Practitioners must not file habeas corpus petitions to resolve civil disputes over residence of adult individuals.
- Courts will dismiss such petitions unless there is credible evidence of unlawful restraint, abduction, or coercion.
- The burden shifts to the petitioner to prove illegal detention - not mere disagreement over living arrangements.
Adult Autonomy Prevails Over Familial Claims
- The right to choose one’s residence is a core component of personal liberty under Article 21.
- Parental consent or approval is not legally required for an adult to live with a family member.
- Courts must prioritize the corpus’s own statement over third-party allegations, especially when the individual is educated and articulate.
Evidence Must Precede Intervention
- Police reports, FIRs, or medical evidence of coercion are essential to sustain a habeas corpus claim.
- Oral assertions by relatives without corroboration are insufficient.
- In the absence of any criminal complaint or detention record, the Court will treat the corpus’s testimony as conclusive.
