MP High Court Protects Adult Woman Who Married Against Family's Wishes From Unnecessary Travel For Police Statement
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed police authorities not to compel an adult woman to travel to Ghazipur merely for the purpose of recording her statement, after she expressed apprehension of danger to her life and liberty following her marriage against her family's wishes. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 364]Directing the petitioner to "cooperate with the inquiry/investigation", the bench of...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed police authorities not to compel an adult woman to travel to Ghazipur merely for the purpose of recording her statement, after she expressed apprehension of danger to her life and liberty following her marriage against her family's wishes. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 364]
Directing the petitioner to "cooperate with the inquiry/investigation", the bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi directed:
"In the facts of the present case, the petitioner has specifically expressed apprehension of danger to her life if she is compelled to travel to Ghazipur. Since her statement can be recorded in a manner consistent with law without unnecessarily exposing her to the apprehended risk, appropriate directions can be issued to balance the requirements of investigation with the petitioner's constitutional rights. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 shall not compel the petitioner to travel to Ghazipur merely for the purpose of recording her statement, if the same can lawfully be recorded at Bhopal. The petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry/investigation and shall appear before the competent police officer at a place and time mutually fixed, subject to law".
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking protection for herself and her husband and a direction that her statement, sought by the police in connection with an inquiry, be recorded at Bhopal instead of Ghazipur or through electronic mode.
According to the petitioner, she attained majority on June 5, 2026. She claimed that she had married the husband of her own free will and against the wishes of her parents. A marriage certificate was also submitted, which was issued by the Bhopal Marriage Officer.
She further alleged that her parents and family members were opposed to the marriage and that, with the assistance of police authorities, and that attempts were made to call her and her husband to Ghazipur. She expressed apprehension that she could face physical harm if taken there against her wishes.
The Government Advocate for the State argued that the police authorities merely sought to record her statement in connection with the proceedings initiated in the matter.
The court noted that the primary issue before it concerned the petitioner's liberty and safety.
Referring to the Supreme Court case of Lata Singh v State of UP [2006 5 SCC 475], the bench reiterated that an adult woman has the right to marry the person of her choice, and neither the family nor anyone else has the authority to harass or threaten her.
The court also took note of the marriage certificate produced by the petitioner. However, it clarified that the proceedings before it were not concerned with adjudicating upon the validity of the marriage, except to the limited extent necessary for protecting the petitioner's personal liberty. The court observed:
"This Court is not required, in the present proceedings, to adjudicate upon the validity of the marriage, except to the limited extent necessary for protecting the petitioner's personal liberty. At the same time, the mere fact that the petitioner is an adult and has married of her own choice does not confer immunity from a lawful police inquiry. If Respondent No.2 is investigating any cognizable offence or conducting proceedings permissible under law, the petitioner cannot be granted a blanket exemption from lawful investigation. However, such investigation must be conducted strictly in accordance with law and without infringing her fundamental right to life, liberty and dignity".
The court, thereafter, considered the petitioner's specific apprehension that her life could be at risk if she were to be compelled to travel to Ghazipur. It was held that her statement could be recorded without unnecessarily exposing her to the apprehended risk and that the requirements of the investigation could be balanced with her fundamental rights.
Accordingly, the court restrained the police from compelling her to travel to Ghazipur merely for recording a police statement, provided that the statement could be lawfully recorded at Bhopal. At the same time, the court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation and appear before a competent police officer at a place and time mutually fixed, subject to law.
The court further clarified
"If the presence of the petitioner at Ghazipur is considered indispensable for any particular purpose of investigation, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law; however, the petitioner shall not be subjected to coercion, intimidation or unlawful restraint".
The court also directed the Superintendent of Police of Bhopal and Ghazipur to take appropriate preventive measures and ensure that no person takes the law into her or his hands.
Case Title: VG v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-34456-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 364
For Petitioner: Advocate Manoj Chaturvedi
For State: Government Advocate Dinesh Prasad Patel