MP High Court: Adult Woman Free To Live With Person Of Her Choice, Cannot Be Forced To Return Home

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a major woman is free to decide where she wants to live and with whom she wishes to reside, holding that courts cannot compel an adult to return to her parents merely because the family disagrees with her personal choices. While disposing of a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the production and custody of her daughter, the Court said that once an individual attains majority, her autonomy and free will must be respected.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal passed the order in a petition filed by Urmila Jharia. The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of habeas corpus and alleging that her daughter was being wrongfully kept by Respondent No. 5. She also sought criminal action against the respondent. The matter came before the Court after an earlier direction was issued to the State authorities to trace and produce the woman before the Bench.

In compliance with the Court’s order dated July 3, 2026, the woman was produced before the Bench by Sub-Inspector Hemamal Thapa of Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur. The judges then interacted with her in court in the absence of the police officials and the parties to ascertain whether she was acting of her own free will.

During the interaction, the woman categorically stated that she was a major and wanted to live with Respondent No. 5 voluntarily. She further informed the Court that she did not wish to return to her parents and that no coercion, pressure or undue influence had been exercised upon her by anyone. The Bench recorded that her statement was clear, voluntary and unequivocal.

The Court observed that the law on the issue is well settled. It noted that the purpose of a habeas corpus petition is to examine whether a person is under illegal detention or unlawful custody. Once it becomes evident that an adult individual is residing at a place of her own choice and is not under any illegal restraint, constitutional courts cannot direct that such a person be handed over to parents or any other individual against her wishes.

Emphasising the importance of personal liberty, the Bench stated, “Once a person attains the age of majority, she is entitled to live wherever she wishes and with whomsoever she wishes.” The Court further observed that no direction can be issued to transfer the custody of a major individual merely because family members are unhappy with her decision.

The judges relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas, where the top court had held that an adult daughter is entitled to make her own choices and courts should not assume the role of a “super guardian.” Quoting the ruling, the Bench noted that courts cannot act as parens patriae when a major individual has clearly expressed her preference regarding where she wants to live.

Applying the same principle to the present case, the High Court held that the woman had attained majority, was not under illegal custody and had voluntarily chosen to stay with Respondent No. 5. Therefore, no direction could be issued contrary to her expressed wishes.

Accordingly, the Court declared that she was free to go wherever she desired without any interference from the petitioner or any other person and disposed of the writ petition. Advocate Yogesh Singh Baghel appeared for the petitioner, while Dr. S.S. Chouhan represented the State.

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

Date of Order: July 6, 2026

Bench: Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal