Blind to Objections: Delhi HC Champions Visually Impaired Woman's Right to Love and Live Freely

In a poignant affirmation of personal liberty, a Delhi High Court bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja ruled that a 100% visually impaired adult woman, Ms. Ruqyya, could leave with her partner, Ram Kripal, despite vehement opposition from her father. The decision in the habeas corpus petition Ram Kripal v. State (NCT of Delhi) underscores that once adulthood is attained, parental approval yields to individual choice.

From Family Home to Courtroom Battle: The Spark of the Dispute

The saga unfolded when Ram Kripal, represented by advocates including Mr. Anubhav Tyagi and Mr. Partha Sharma, filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1205/2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He alleged that Ms. Ruqyya was being unlawfully confined by her family against her will. The respondents included the State (NCT of Delhi) and Ms. Ruqyya's father.

Following the court's interim directions on April 15, 2026, Ms. Ruqyya appeared in person on April 18, along with her father and the petitioner. The visually impaired woman, confirmed as a major, became the focal point of judicial scrutiny amid claims of coercion.

Father's Firm Stand Versus Daughter's Clear Will

The petitioner passionately advocated for Ms. Ruqyya's release, emphasizing their imminent marriage plans and her desire to live with him. He expressed genuine apprehensions about potential backlash from her family.

Ms. Ruqyya's father, appearing personally, stood unyielding. He opposed the relationship outright, declaring he would sever all ties if she chose her partner over family. No formal arguments were advanced by the State beyond facilitating the appearance, with counsel Mr. Abhinav Kumar assisting the standing counsel.

Judicial Lens on Autonomy: No Precedents Needed for Fundamental Truth

The bench dispensed with complex precedents, grounding its reasoning in bedrock constitutional principles. A major's voluntary declaration trumps familial discord. The justices directly interacted with all parties, ascertaining Ms. Ruqyya's wishes without duress. Her emphatic affirmation sealed the matter—no disability or parental fiat could override her agency.

This approach aligns with established habeas corpus jurisprudence, prioritizing personal liberty under Article 21 and 226, especially where no illegality in custody is found.

Echoes from the Bench: Words That Set Her Free

Key Observations

"Ms. Ruqyya has emphatically stated that she wishes to reside with the petitioner and in fact the petitioner and Ms.Ruqyya are going to get married soon."

"As far as the father of Ms.Ruqyya is concerned, he seems to be opposed to the alliance of his daughter and the petitioner. He states that if she chooses to go with the petitioner, he shall not like to have any contact with her in the future."

"Be that as it may, as Ms.Ruqyya is major and has decided to reside with the petitioner, she shall be free to do so."

These quotes capture the court's direct engagement and unflinching application of law.

A Safe Passage to Independence: Ruling with Safeguards

The petition stood disposed on April 18, 2026, with Ms. Ruqyya declared free to reside with Ram Kripal. Recognizing the "sensitivity of the issue" and the petitioner's fears, the court invoked state machinery for protection: an escort to their chosen residence and the local beat constable's contact details for emergencies.

Inspector Surender Singh and SI Anjali from PS Kanjhawala were present, ensuring immediate compliance. This ruling not only liberates one woman but reinforces that adulthood confers untrammelled rights to residence and relationships, potentially shielding similar couples from familial or societal pressures in future disputes.