Adult Woman Who Voluntarily Marries Person Of Her Choice Cannot Be Compelled To Return To Parents: J&K&L High Court

Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that an adult's voluntary and unequivocal decision to accompany her husband has legal recognition, and that a major person cannot be compelled to reside with or accompany another individual merely because that person happens to be her parent.

The Court dismissed a father's habeas corpus petition seeking the recovery of his 20-year-old daughter, who had left her parental home and married a person of her choice, holding that the material on record indicated that she had left voluntarily and was residing with her husband.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by Bashir Ahmed seeking directions to the Jammu & Kashmir authorities to trace and recover his daughter and constitute a dedicated team to investigate her disappearance within a stipulated timeframe.

The petitioner submitted that his daughter had gone missing on July 11, 2026, after leaving home to appear in her Higher Secondary School Part-I annual examination. He alleged that she had not returned and that her whereabouts remained unknown despite efforts by the family to trace her.

According to the petitioner, he had lodged a missing report at the concerned police station on July 12, 2026, but no effective steps had been taken to locate her. He apprehended that she might have been abducted or unlawfully detained.

During the proceedings, however, the daughter sought impleadment as a respondent and filed her reply before the Court. She stated that she had voluntarily left her parental home to marry a person of her choice and that her decision had not been influenced by force or undue influence.

She further stated that she had attained the age of majority, did not wish to live with her parents, and did not want her custody to be handed over to her father.

Court's Observations:

Justice Dhar directed the daughter to appear before the Court and interacted with her personally. During the interaction, she stated that she was more than 19 years old and was residing independently at Kishtwar with her husband, Mohd. Abdullah, whom she had married of her own free will.

She also informed the Court that she and her husband had earlier approached it through a separate writ petition seeking protection against harassment, pursuant to which directions had been issued in their favour.

Her statement was subsequently recorded on oath by the Registrar Judicial. She reiterated that she had married Mohd. Abdullah voluntarily, wished to continue living with him, and did not want to return to her parental home.

Examining the legal position, the Court observed that once an adult has made a voluntary and unequivocal choice to accompany her husband, that decision is entitled to legal recognition.

Justice Dhar held that habeas corpus jurisdiction is intended to secure the release of a person from illegal or unlawful detention and cannot be invoked to compel an adult to reside with another person against her wishes.

The Court observed,

“A major person cannot be compelled to reside with or accompany a particular person even if, such person happens to be her parent.”

Applying this principle, the Court found that the material on record did not indicate that the daughter was being subjected to any form of unlawful detention. Rather, the circumstances suggested that she had voluntarily left her parental home to live with her husband.

The Court accordingly held that the essential basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus was absent.

It observed,

“Thus, it is not a case of illegal or unlawful detention. In these circumstances, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued.”

Dismissing the petition, the High Court clarified that the daughter, being an adult, remained at liberty to accompany the person of her choice.

Case Title: Bashir Ahmed v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Others


Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read the judgment