The Kerala High Court held that parents cannot use a habeas corpus petition to oppose an adult daughter’s choice to live a celibate life or join a religious congregation, reaffirming that such personal decisions are protected under Article 21’s autonomy guarantee.
The Kerala High Court ruled that parents cannot invoke the writ of habeas corpus to challenge an adult daughter’s decision to live a life of celibacy or to join a religious congregation.
The Court reiterated that questions of belief and personal life choices fall within the protection of individual autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It further held that parental disagreement or dissatisfaction with such decisions cannot, by itself, amount to illegal detention particularly where there is no material indicating coercion, restraint, or unlawful confinement.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the parents failed to establish any case of unlawful detention.
The Bench noted that, as major persons, the daughters were entitled to exercise autonomy in matters relating to faith and personal lifestyle.
The Court also recorded that police inquiries indicated the women were residing with the religious congregation out of their own free will and without any coercion, and on that basis, declined to issue a writ of habeas corpus.
ALSO READ: Married Daughter Also Entitled to Ex-Gratia After Father’s Death: MP High Court
The petition was brought by three parents who alleged that their adult daughters were being unlawfully detained by members of a religious congregation known as the “Monastery of Holy Ruah (MHR)”.
The parents contended that although the daughters had initially joined the congregation when it was recognized by the Archdiocese of Thrissur, later developments including a formal decree dissolving the congregation made the daughters’ continued association suspicious.
According to the petitioners, their daughters were being influenced or pressured into continuing with the congregation despite those changes.
Citing earlier decisions, the parents argued that parental guidance and authority do not completely disappear upon a child attaining majority, and that courts should intervene where an adult’s decisions are irrational or harmful to family and societal interests.
They also maintained that the daughters failed to take account of relevant circumstances and were subjected to undue influence by those administering the congregation.
ALSO READ: Do Daughters Have Equal Property Right? : Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The High Court did not accept these submissions. It emphasized that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy that requires clear proof of illegal detention or unlawful restraint.
The Court stressed that, especially when the persons alleged to be detained are adults, judicial scrutiny must be cautious and should respect personal liberty and decisional autonomy.
It held that the reach of habeas corpus cannot be expanded to examine whether a person’s life choices are correct, desirable, or aligned with others’ expectations.
Relying on constitutional jurisprudence, including the Supreme Court decisions in K.S. Puttaswamy, Navtej Singh Johar, and Shafin Jahan, the Bench observed that autonomy includes the right to make deeply personal choices concerning belief, identity, and lifestyle.
It noted that such autonomy is linked to dignity and cannot be overridden merely because a family or institution disapproves.
The Court also clarified that the doctrine of parens patriae permits intervention mainly in cases involving minors or persons lacking the capacity to make independent decisions. Here, the alleged detenues were adults, were educationally qualified, and there was no material showing incapacity to make informed choices.
The Bench further observed that the petition was largely driven by the parents’ disagreement with the daughters’ decision to remain associated with a congregation no longer aligned with the Archdiocese.
However, it held that disagreement could not convert into a legal claim of illegal detention.
ALSO READ: Are Daughters Equal Heirs? | Property Rights of Women in India Explained
The Court pointed out that the Constitution protects an individual’s freedom to choose faith and life practices even when such choices diverge from familial or institutional expectations.
The Court also took note of a report submitted by the State, indicating that the women had provided signed statements confirming that they were continuing with the religious order voluntarily and without any coercion. In the absence of contrary evidence, the Court concluded that there was no basis to entertain the writ petition.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the invocation of habeas corpus in such circumstances was misconceived and unwarranted.
Case Title: Joju George & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.