"Legally Competent To Make A Choice" : Bombay High Court Aids Adult Woman Who Left Home To Avoid Forced Marriage
A 21-year-old woman, being an adult is legally competent to decide where she wishes to reside, whom she must marry etc and thus, her parents and the State cannot compel her to make a choice against her wish, the Bombay High Court held while directing the Mumbai Police not to entertain a 'missing persons' complaint about a young Muslim woman, who left her parents' home from Hyderabad to...
A 21-year-old woman, being an adult is legally competent to decide where she wishes to reside, whom she must marry etc and thus, her parents and the State cannot compel her to make a choice against her wish, the Bombay High Court held while directing the Mumbai Police not to entertain a 'missing persons' complaint about a young Muslim woman, who left her parents' home from Hyderabad to avoid marrying as per their choice.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad noted that the petitioner woman before them had fled from her Hyderabad house and traveled all the way to Mumbai only to avoid getting married to a cousin, who is 10 years older to him, as per her parents' wish.
The woman claimed that her biological parents had given her in adoption to her maternal uncle and aunt when she was 2 month old and since then her 'adoptive' parents have 'controlled' her.
Therefore, the woman on June 15, fled from her Hyderabad residence, reached Kolhapur via flight and from there she took a bus ride to reach Mumbai. Here in the city, she approached the Powai Police Station requesting them not to entertain any missing persons complaint, if any, lodged by her adoptive parents as she has left her parental home on her own will.
She then petitioned the division bench through senior counsel Mihir Desai and advocate Devyani Kulkarni urging the judges to issue appropriate directions as she did not want to return to her adoptive parents and get married to an older cousin.
The judges interacted with the woman extensively and also with her parents, and expressed satisfaction that the Petitioner has voluntarily left her parental home and has been acting out of her own free will.
"She is an adult, being 21 years of age and is legally competent to decide where she wishes to reside, whether she wishes to marry and whether she desires to pursue higher education. These are matters of personal choice and a part of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Neither her parents nor the State can compel her to return to her parental home against her wishes. The assurances stated in the affidavit dated 2nd July 2026 tendered by the Petitioner's parents are accepted. Nevertheless, such assurances cannot override the Petitioner's choices, which she has repeatedly affirmed before this Court," the judges held.
The judges therefore, held that there is no justification for treating the Petitioner as a 'missing person' or for continuing any coercive process intended to secure her return to Hyderabad.
"Since we have personally interacted with the Petitioner and are satisfied that she is acting voluntarily, the Telangana Police shall take appropriate steps to close the missing person report lodged by the Petitioner's parents in accordance with law. The Petitioner shall not be compelled, directly or indirectly, to return to her parental home or be subjected to any pressure under the threat of criminal proceedings or otherwise," the judges ordered.
With these observations, the judges disposed of the plea.
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai along with Advocates Devyani Kulkarni, Rishika Agarwal and Sanskruti Yagnik appeared for the Petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor Mankhunwar Deshmukh represented the State.
Advocate Swati Sinha represented the Parents.
Case Title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition 3151 of 2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 310