Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has emphasised that parental love or concern should not infringe upon an adult's right to choose their spouse.

A division bench comprising Justice Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. M. Manoj, made the observation while ruling on a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman's partner. “We are of the view that parental love or concern cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married,” the court remarked.

The petitioner, a Master's student in Germany, claimed that he is in an intimate relationship with a 27-year-old woman who works as a Project Engineer. According to the petition, the woman's father opposed the relationship due to religious differences and had detained her.

The Court interacted with the woman, her father, and the petitioner via video conference. The woman informed the Court that she was being held under illegal detention and expressed her desire to be with the petitioner.

Referencing the Supreme Court judgment in ‘Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K. M.’, the court highlighted that that the primary purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to ensure that no individual is deprived of their liberty without legal sanction. The court further underscored that it is the State's fundamental duty to protect this right and ensure its sanctity is not compromised by any deceit or deceptiveness. “The role of the Court is to see that the detenu is produced before it, find out about his/her independent choice, and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. What is seminal is to remember that the song of liberty is sung with sincerity and the choice of an individual is appositely respected and conferred its esteemed status as the Constitution guarantees. It is so as the expression of choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, provided the said choice does not transgress any valid legal framework. Once that aspect is clear, the inquiry and determination have to come to an end,” the court noted.

The court also cited the Supreme Court’s observation in the case of ‘Anuj Garg and Others’ wherein the apex court held that “It is their life; subject to constitutional, statutory, and social interdicts—a citizen of India should be allowed to live her life on her own terms.”

Consequently, the Court ordered the woman to be set at liberty and allowed her to join the petitioner stating that she was illegally confined against her wish by the parents.

 

Cause Title: ALTHAF J MUHAMMED v THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF OFFICE OF THE DCP, THRISSUR [WP(CRL.) NO. 565 OF 2024]