Adult Woman Cannot Be Forced By Family, Free To Join Husband: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that an adult woman is free to decide how and with whom she wishes to live, allowing a married woman to leave with her husband after personally verifying her wishes and ensuring safeguards for her safety and dignity.

A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Kumar Manish passed the order while hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Golu Kumar, who alleged that his wife, Rani Kumari, was being illegally confined by her parents and prevented from communicating with him after their marriage.

The petitioner had approached the Court seeking directions to trace and produce his wife before the Court, protect their life and liberty, and restrain her family members from interfering with their matrimonial life. He also sought a direction to prevent any marriage-related ceremony involving Rani Kumari without her free and voluntary consent.

Appearing for the petitioner were Advocates Saket Tiwary and Anuraj Singh. The State was represented by Sunil Kumar Mandal along with Advocates Neelam Kumari, Priya Gupta and Lokesh Kumar, while Advocate Kalpana Singh appeared for the private respondents.

According to the plea, both the petitioner and Rani Kumari were adults and had married each other. The petitioner claimed that because Rani Kumari’s parents opposed the marriage, he was unable to meet or communicate with her. It was further alleged that her mobile phone had been taken away and that she was being kept under confinement.

To ascertain the truth, the High Court had earlier directed the Officer-in-Charge of Gaurichak Police Station to personally meet the woman and determine whether she was living with her parents voluntarily or was under confinement. The Court specifically instructed the police officer to conduct the verification discreetly and without creating unnecessary pressure.

When the matter came up again, the Bench found that complete information regarding the woman’s statement was not available. The Court therefore directed that she be produced before it and interacted with her in chambers.

During the interaction, the Court examined a written statement previously given by her to the police. In that statement, she acknowledged her marriage with the petitioner and stated that she was willing to live with him, though she had concerns regarding acceptance by his family members.

The Court also interacted with the petitioner, who assured the Bench that his parents were ready to accept his wife and would keep her with safety and security. The Bench thereafter directed the presence of both families before the Court.

During the final hearing, the petitioner, his parents, Rani Kumari and her parents appeared before the judges. In the presence of all concerned parties, Rani Kumari once again stated that she wished to live with her husband. Her parents expressed concerns about her safety and sought assurances from the Court regarding her welfare in her matrimonial home.

To address those concerns, the petitioner and his parents agreed to furnish undertakings by way of affidavits. After examining the affidavits, the Court accepted the assurances and proceeded to dispose of the case.

In a significant 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.” The Court further 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 also granted liberty to the woman and her parents to approach the Court again through 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 future.

With these directions, the Court disposed of the writ petition, placing the woman’s autonomy and expressed choice at the centre of its decision while simultaneously creating safeguards intended to protect her dignity and security in her matrimonial home.

Case Title: Golu Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Others

Date of Order: July 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Kumar Manish