Allahabad High Court Frees Major Woman Detained Over Interfaith Marriage, Says Father Can't Force Her To Live With Him
The Allahabad High Court has set a major woman, who said she was illegally detained by her father after marrying a man of a different religion, at liberty, while observing that an adult woman has the legal right to choose whom she wants to live with.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi thus allowed the habeas corpus petition filed by one Princy through her husband/next friend Gurpreet Singh. The Court directed that she be set at liberty from her father's custody, after she categorically stated that she wanted to live with her husband.
According to the petition, the petitioner came in contact with Gurpreet Singh through social media in February 2025. She left her parental home voluntarily on September 19, 2025, and began living with him in Noida.
The Court noted that her husband follows the Sikh religion, while the petitioner is Hindu, and her family members were opposed to their relationship. The couple claimed to have married in a temple in Noida on November 4, 2025, and had since been living as husband and wife.
The petition stated that the petitioner's family subsequently called her to her paternal home to tie Rakhi to her brothers, but she was thereafter detained by her father and other family members.
The petitioner allegedly sent messages to her husband complaining that her family members were assaulting and harassing her and asking him to rescue her. After his approach to the police did not succeed, the habeas corpus petition was filed.
Before the High Court, the petitioner categorically stated that she wanted to live with her husband and that her father was not permitting her to join her husband.
The father's counsel opposed the petition, arguing that although the petitioner and her husband claimed to have married in a temple, they had not stated that Saptapadi was performed and therefore the marriage was not valid in law.
Reliance was placed on earlier judgments concerning the validity of Hindu marriages, including Shruti Agnihotri vs. Anand Kumar Srivastava and Manoj Kumar Gupta vs. State of UP
The High Court, however, held that those judgments arose from materially different factual circumstances. In those cases, the alleged wives themselves had disputed the validity of their marriages and had resisted the husbands' claims to join their company.
The Court said that, since the parties to the marriage did not dispute its validity, it could not examine the disputed question of Saptapadi raised by the father, against whom the petitioner herself had alleged illegal detention.
The Court then made the crucial observation that even the question of validity of the marriage did not affect petitioner's autonomy as a major woman. The bench remarked thus:
"Whether the marriage of the detenue is valid or not, she having the age of majority, has the legal right to choose not to reside with her father and her father cannot force her to live with him".
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Soni Gerry vs. Gerry Douglas, which held that upon attaining majority, an individual is entitled to make her own choice and courts should not assume the role of parens patriae or act as a "super guardian".
The High Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., which explained that the purpose of habeas corpus is to ensure that no person is deprived of liberty without sanction of law.
The Supreme Court had held that the Court's role is to produce the detenue, ascertain the person's independent choice and ensure release from illegal restraint. It had further recognized that the expression of choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21, subject to the legal framework.
"The choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual", the Top Court had remarked.
Applying these principles, the High Court observed thus:
"When the detenue is major, she has the legal right to chose whom she wants to live, she claims to have married the person of her choice and she has categorically stated that she wants to live with that person but herself father has detained her against her wishes, because he is opposed to her marrying a person following a different religion, the detenue in illegal detention of her father deserves to be set free by issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus".
The Court accordingly allowed the habeas corpus petition and directed that the petitioner be set at liberty from the custody of her father.
Also read: 'He Voluntarily Embraced Islam' : Allahabad High Court Frees Ayush Malik From Home Confinement
Case title - Princy Thru. Her Husband Gurpreet Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 711
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 711