MP High Court Protects Couple, Says No Coercion to Record Statement

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed police in Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, not to compel a young woman to travel there merely to record her statement, holding that the exercise can lawfully be carried out at Bhopal instead, after she told the court she feared for her life and her husband's if she was made to go.

Justice Himanshu Joshi passed the order on a petition filed by a young girl, who told the court she was born on June 5, 2008, and therefore turned 18 on June 5, 2026. She said she married of her own free will, against her parents' wishes, and placed the marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer, Bhopal, on record. According to her, with her family opposed to the match, they were using the local police to summon her and her husband to Ghazipur, and she feared that if taken there, the couple "may be subjected to physical harm and may even be killed."

She said that on August 14, 2026, police came to her with a notice from Respondent No. 2 asking her to appear for her statement, and that she managed to avoid being taken along. Her husband, she said, separately sought protection and lodged a complaint at Police Station Ratibad, Bhopal.

Advocate Manoj Chaturvedi, appearing for the petitioner, argued that she was an adult entitled to choose her own spouse and way of life, that the marriage had been solemnised voluntarily, and that there was no need to make her travel to Ghazipur when her statement could just as easily be recorded at Bhopal or online.

Government Advocate Dinesh Prasad Patel, representing the State, clarified he was not appearing for Respondent No. 2 but could, after taking instructions from the investigating officer, assist the court on its behalf. He submitted that the police only wished to record her statement as part of an ongoing inquiry, with no intention of causing harm, and that the petitioner could not seek a blanket bar on the investigation, though safeguards could be directed if the court thought fit.

The court noted that the petitioner's status as a major was not disputed by the respondents. Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., and Laxmibai Chandaragi B. v. State of Karnataka, it observed that the choice of a life partner falls within the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and that families or the State cannot override that autonomy.

At the same time, the court made clear that being an adult who married by choice did not give the petitioner "immunity from a lawful police inquiry" or a "blanket exemption from lawful investigation." Any such inquiry, it said, had to proceed "strictly in accordance with law and without infringing her fundamental right to life, liberty and dignity."

Balancing these considerations, the court directed that Respondent No. 2 "shall not compel the petitioner to travel to Ghazipur merely for the purpose of recording her statement, if the same can lawfully be recorded at Bhopal," while she must cooperate with the investigation and appear before the police at a place and time mutually fixed. It added that if her presence in Ghazipur was genuinely indispensable for some specific purpose, the authorities remained free to proceed in accordance with law, but she was not to be subjected to "coercion, intimidation or unlawful restraint."

On the apprehension of threat to her life, the court directed the Superintendents of Police in Bhopal and Ghazipur to take appropriate preventive measures on receiving a copy of the order and the petitioner's representation, and to ensure no one takes the law into their own hands over the marriage.

The court clarified it was not expressing any view on the marriage's validity or the merits of the police proceedings, leaving the authority to proceed independently. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Case Title: Smt. VG v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: September 1, 2026

Bench: Justice Himanshu Joshi

Tags: