Wife Can't Authorise Husband's Detention At De-Addiction Centre Without His Consent Or Legal/Medical Mandate: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that private rehabilitation centers have no statutory authority to detain a person based solely on their spouse's consent form. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 423]

Emphasizing that a person can only be admitted to a de-addiction center either of his/her own free will or by a competent legal or medical mandate, the division bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed:

"A private rehabilitation center has no statutory authority to act as a detention facility merely based on a spouse's consent form. The admission of an adult to a de-addiction center must either stem from his own voluntary free will or be backed by a competent legal or medical mandate, both of which are glaringly absent in the present case". 

The petitioner approached the Court seeking a writ of habeas corpus to release his younger brother from the alleged custody of a private rehabilitation center (respondent no. 4). The center allegedly confined the corpus at the behest of the corpus' wife (respondent no. 5). 

Per the facts, the corpus and his wife were in a deeply strained relationship and were residing separately. The corpus had previously filed multiple police complaints against his wife and her family members for physical assault and harassment. On September 7, 2026, the wife allegedly called the corpus to her residence and unlawfully detained him at a private rehabilitation facility. 

The petitioner submitted that he went to visit the corpus at the facility the next day to secure his release but was blatantly refused by the facility, upon which he submitted a complaint to the local police, but no effective steps were taken. It was also submitted that the corpus suffers from left-sided paralysis of the body and requires specialised neurological care. 

The petitioner further argued that the corpus was neither a habitual drug addict nor required forced treatment. It was submitted that the wife detained the corpus with mala fide intention to usurp his property and that the said confinement violates his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

The counsel for the wife argued that the corpus is a habitual drug addict, resulting in medical ailments spanning several years. It was submitted that the corpus frequently caused physical harm to the wife due to his persistent state of intoxication, and therefore she submitted him to the facility to save her own life. 

The bench examined the medical report ordered by the court and noted that the corpus has no gross psychopathology on Mental State Examination; however, he has left-sided residual hemiparesis on physical examination. The bench held that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that the corpus suffers from "any psychopathology or addiction warranting his forced institutionalization".

The bench found merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding lack of informed consent. Rejecting the contention that the facility was a 'free will' facility, the bench noted that, "If the Corpus truly enjoyed free will and was a voluntary patient, the center would have possessed no authority to deny his exit". 

Thus, in view of the Medical Board report confirming the lack of gross psychopathology, the bench held that the corpus was subjected to illegal detention, which directly violates his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the facility to release the corpus. 

For Petitioner: Advocate Monesh Jindal

For State: Government Advocate Amit Bhatia

For Wife: Advocate Shubham Mandil