Major Woman Free To Live Wherever She Wishes; Courts Can't Issue Directions Contrary To Her Free Will: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a mother's habeas corpus plea seeking that her daughter be traced, observing that the daughter is an adult woman who cannot be forced to reside at home with her parents merely because they disagree with her choice of partner. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 267]The bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed;"Once it emerges...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a mother's habeas corpus plea seeking that her daughter be traced, observing that the daughter is an adult woman who cannot be forced to reside at home with her parents merely because they disagree with her choice of partner. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 267]
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal observed;
"Once it emerges from the interaction with the corpus that a major individual is residing at a place of her own free will and is not under any illegal restraint, no direction can be issued by a Constitutional Court to hand over her custody to any other person, including her parents, merely because such person may be aggrieved by her choice".
The court, after hearing the mother's initial submission, had directed the Police to produce the said corpus before the court. In complaince of the said order, the corpus was present in court, wherein upon inquiry, she categorically stated that she was a major and wishes to reside with respondent no 5 (her partner).
The court examining her statements noted that the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable only if the corpus is under illegal or unlawful detention or custody.
The bench further referred to the case of Soni Gerry vs. Gerry Douglas [SLP(C) No.18761/2011] and reiterated that after attaining the age of majority, a daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as law permits. It further reiterated that in such circumstances, the court should not assume the role of a superguardian and pass adverse orders being moved by sentiments of the parents.
Thus, the bench held that no direction was warranted in this case, noting that the corpus was major and is entitled to reside at her own will.
"Once a person attains the age of majority, she is entitled to live wherever she wishes and with whomsoever she wishes...Courts cannot issue any direction contrary to her expressed free will, nor can it compel her to reside with the petitioner against her wishes," it said.
Case Title: UJ v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-25504-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 267
For Petitioner: Advocate Yogesh Singh Baghel
For State: Government Advocate S.S. Chouhan