Don’t Break Ties With Parents, Says MP High Court While Upholding Adult Woman’s Choice
Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses a plea concerning an adult woman living in Mumbai after she says she is there by choice, employed and not confined, while advising her not to cut ties with her parents.
Adult Woman Free to Live Life as She Wishes: MP High Court Dismisses Plea Over Daughter in Mumbai
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has dismissed a writ petition concerning an adult woman living in Mumbai, after she told the bench that she had moved to the city voluntarily, had secured a job and was not under any illegal confinement. The court granted her “liberty to live her life as per her own wishes”.
A division bench of Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla passed the order on October 6 in Writ Petition No. 41928 of 2026, titled Smt. Ratnaprabha Shakya vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
Advocates H.K. Shukla and Rajeev Shrivastava appeared for the petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Dr. Anjali Gyanani represented the State. The petitioner’s husband, Rajendra Singh, whom the order records as the woman’s father, and Town Inspector Yashwant Goyal of Police Station Maharajpura were also present in court when the matter was taken up.
When the matter was first called, the State counsel told the bench that the woman had filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. According to the order, she sought protection of her life, liberty, dignity and personal safety, and a declaration that, as a major, she could independently decide her residence, education, profession, association, personal relationships and matrimonial future. She also sought directions to Mumbai police authorities to ensure she was not forcibly taken, confined or handed over to her father.
However, the State counsel could not trace any such petition on the Bombay High Court website. After the matter was passed over, the State informed the bench that the lawyer who was to file it had said it had not yet been filed but would be filed that day. The State also submitted that a check of bank accounts showed the woman had transferred money to an advocate, who then emailed a draft petition to the police.
The bench noted that the draft was prepared on September 29, 2026, yet still remained unfiled on October 6, “in spite of the fact that a huge amount by way of fees was already transferred”. Why it was “kept pending is not known to us”, the bench said, adding that the woman “must remain vigilant about her security”.
The court had directed her counsel to appear through video conferencing. When a link was sent to advocate A.S. Sayyed, the woman joined the proceedings from Mumbai and reiterated her stand.
The father submitted that she had been undergoing treatment for schizophrenia and that, if she was unwilling to return, she should continue her medical treatment. The bench observed that this gesture was meant for her welfare.
The woman replied that she had already consulted a psychiatrist, who told her she was not suffering from schizophrenia, though he would need a court order for a formal evaluation. She said she would continue treatment if an evaluation showed it was required. She also said that if she ever felt she must return to her parents, she would do so on her own, through an independent decision.
The bench told her she could seek a direction for evaluation of her mental condition in the Bombay High Court petition, and she said she would amend her petition accordingly. She also said she was staying at a friend’s house in Malad West, Mumbai, though she declined to disclose his name.
The bench further recorded that she is an advocate by profession, enrolled with the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh in September 2026.
Holding that she was residing in Mumbai of her own volition and was not in illegal confinement, the bench concluded that “no case is made out to proceed further with this petition”, and dismissed the petition accordingly.
The court, however, added a word of advice. It said she “should not break her ties completely with her parents” and should not hesitate to contact them or return to her parental home whenever she finds herself vulnerable or needs their help.
Case Title: Smt. Ratnaprabha Shakya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Date of Order: October 6, 2026
Bench: Justice G. S. Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla