Father Wants Wedding Rituals for Respect; Woman Says No, Stays With Husband: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Habeas Corpus Plea

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently reaffirmed the primacy of individual choice and autonomy in matrimonial matters, holding that a major woman cannot be compelled to return to her parental home against her wishes.

Deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by a father alleging illegal confinement of his daughter, a Division Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav declined to interfere after the woman clearly expressed her desire to live with her husband.

The petition was filed by Ramsevak, who claimed that his daughter had been wrongfully confined by respondent No. 4, Raghvendra Gurjar. According to the pleadings, the woman had eloped with Gurjar, prompting the father to approach the court seeking her custody. The matter was treated as a habeas corpus petition, requiring the court to ascertain whether the woman was under unlawful detention.

During the proceedings, the corpus was produced before the court by police officials from Police Station Antri, Gwalior. The bench ensured that her statement was recorded independently and after due counselling. Dr. Anjali Gyanani, who was appointed as “Shaurya Didi” for counselling purposes, interacted with the woman and submitted her report before the court.

The counselling report, as well as the woman’s own statement before the bench, made her position unequivocally clear. She stated that she was a major and had voluntarily entered into marriage with respondent No. 4. She further told the court that she wished to reside with her husband and expressed apprehension about her safety if she were compelled to return to her parental home.

Recording her statement, the court noted that she “is major and entered into wedlock with respondent No.4 therefore, she wants to live with him and does not want to live with her parents because her parents may harm her.”

The bench also interacted with the petitioner-father, who, in a notable shift from his initial stance, informed the court that he was willing to accept the marriage. However, he expressed concern about societal perception and requested that customary ceremonies be performed so that his “social status may not be compromised.” The court recorded this submission but made it clear that such considerations could not override the autonomy of an adult individual.

Crucially, the court emphasized that once the corpus was found to be a major and acting of her own free will, the scope of a habeas corpus petition becomes limited. The jurisdiction is primarily concerned with illegal detention, and not with adjudicating familial disagreements or societal expectations. In the present case, the bench found no element of coercion or unlawful confinement.

Taking into account the counselling report, the interaction with the corpus, and the overall facts, the court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. It categorically held that since the woman is a major and has voluntarily entered into a matrimonial relationship, she is entitled to decide where and with whom she wishes to reside. Accordingly, the court permitted her to go with her husband and “live in matrimonial fold.”

At the same time, the court showed sensitivity to the concerns expressed regarding safety. Upon a request made by the corpus and her husband, the bench directed the police officials present in the courtroom to ensure that the couple was safely escorted to their residence.

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

Date of Order: March 24, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav