The Patna High Court reiterated that an adult woman has the fundamental right to decide where and with whom she wishes to live. The Court held that a married woman may join her husband only after her wishes are personally verified with adequate safeguards.
The Patna High Court reiterated that an adult woman is entitled to decide freely where she wishes to live and with whom. Observing that a married woman may leave to live with her husband, the Court held that such decision must be based on the woman’s personal verification of her wishes, along with adequate safeguards to protect her safety and dignity.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Kumar Manish passed the order while deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by Golu Kumar, who alleged that his wife, Rani Kumari, was being unlawfully confined by her parents and was being prevented from communicating with him after their marriage.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to:
- trace and produce his wife before the Court,
- protect their life and liberty, and
- restrain the respondent family members from interfering with their matrimonial life.
He also prayed for an order preventing any marriage-related ceremony involving Rani Kumari without her free and voluntary consent.
Counsel for the petitioner included Advocates Saket Tiwary and Anuraj Singh.
The State was represented by Sunil Kumar Mandal, along with Advocates Neelam Kumari, Priya Gupta, and Lokesh Kumar. Advocate Kalpana Singh appeared for the private respondents.
According to the petition, both the petitioner and Rani Kumari were adults and had married each other. The petitioner claimed that since Rani Kumari’s parents opposed the marriage, he was unable to meet or communicate with her. He further alleged that her mobile phone had been taken away and that she was being kept in confinement.
To verify the allegations, the Court previously directed the Officer-in-Charge of Gaurichak Police Station to personally meet the woman and ascertain whether she was residing with her parents voluntarily or was being held against her will. The Court specifically instructed the police officer to carry out the verification discreetly and without creating any undue pressure.
When the matter was listed again, the Bench noted that it did not have complete information regarding the woman’s statement. It therefore ordered that Rani Kumari be produced before it and that she be interacted with in chambers.
During the interaction, the Court reviewed a written statement earlier given by her to the police. In that statement, she acknowledged her marriage to the petitioner and stated that she was willing to live with him, while also expressing concerns about whether she would be accepted by his family members.
The Court also interacted with the petitioner. He assured the Bench that his parents were prepared to accept Rani Kumari and would keep her safe and secure.
The Bench then directed both families to appear before the Court.
At the final hearing, the petitioner, his parents, Rani Kumari, and her parents appeared before the judges. In the presence of all parties, Rani Kumari reiterated that she wished to live with her husband. Her parents, however, expressed worries regarding her safety and sought assurances from the Court about her welfare in her matrimonial home.
To address these concerns, the petitioner and his parents agreed to submit undertakings through affidavits. After perusing the affidavits, the Court accepted the assurances and disposed of the petition.
In a key observation, the Bench said,
“This Court sets a-free respondent no. 5 to go as per her desire and live her life according to her wishes.”
ALSO READ: “No Law Stops an Adult Woman From Living With a Married Man”: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Court also recorded that the undertakings furnished by the petitioner and his parents would ensure that she enjoys a happy stay in the family and is treated with respect and dignity.
The High Court further granted liberty to Rani Kumari and her parents to approach the Court again by filing an interlocutory application if there is any breach of the undertakings given before the Bench. It clarified that such an application would be listed immediately if any grievance arises in the future.
With these directions, the Court disposed of the writ petition placing the woman’s autonomy and her stated choice at the centre of the decision, while also putting safeguards in place to protect her dignity and security in her matrimonial home.