The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an individual, especially of the corpus's age, to make decisions regarding marriage and the emphasis on personal liberty and education for self-reliance.

ORDER

1. Shri Rizwan Khan, learned counsel for petitioner.

2. Shri Pradeep Singh, learned Government Advocate for respondents/State.

3. Shri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for respondent. No.6.

4. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks issuance of writ of habeas corpus for releasing the corpus from the alleged unlawful confinement at Nari Niketan.

5. The factual matrix reveals that the petitioner and the corpus knew each other since number of years and developed fondness for each other and are presently inclined to get married. However, it is alleged that the parents of the corpus are unable to approve of the marriage between corpus and the petitioner primarily because the petitioner belongs to a different religion and also that the corpus is of an impressionable age i.e. 19 years when she should prioratise completing her academic career over marriage. The corpus on earlier three occasions i.e. 14.2.2022, 17.2.2022 and 21.2.2022 appeared before this Court through video conferencing from District Court, Betul. On the last occasion i.e. on 21.2.2022, this Court looking to the urgency of the matter directed functionaries of the State to physically produce the corpus before this Court.

6. The corpus has been physically produced before this Court and is heard in camera.

7. The father and the brother of corpus were also heard in camera. The petitioner has also been heard in camera.

8. During in-camera proceedings, the corpus was adamant upon marrying petitioner. The corpus reveals that the petitioner has assured the corpus of physical and financial assistance for completing her education (presently corpus is pursuing the Nursing Course at undergraduate level).

9. The corpus has expressed certain apprehensions before this Court that petitioner may solemnize another marriage after marrying the corpus. As such this Court asked the petitioner to file an affidavit so that apprehension of corpus may be to some extent assuaged. The petitioner filed an affidavit on 18.2.2022 vide I.A.No.112/2022 which reveals thus:

10. Copy of the aforesaid affidavit has been supplied to corpus and she was asked as to whether the said assurance in the affidavit given by petitioner satisfies her apprehension or not.

11. The corpus was though a little apprehensive since the issue of petitioner solemnizing multiple marriages remain unanswered by the petitioner but still insists that she would like to marry the petitioner and also pursue her academic career.

12. The father and brother of corpus raised apprehension about the safety and security of corpus and also revealed that their interest is in corpus completing her academic career so that she attains self-reliance and is not dependent on the petitioner who has meager source of income.

13. The corpus is more than 19 years of age (D.O.B. 19.10.2002) and therefore, as per law is entitled to take a decision on the choice of marriage. However, parents of corpus are equally concerned with the safety and security of their daughter and their cause of concern cannot be belittled when compared with the desire of corpus to get married to the petitioner.

14. In petition seeking habeas corpus, this Court has limited jurisdiction. The corpus has already attained the age of majority and, therefore, cannot be kept confined in Nari Niketan where she was lodged since last few days awaiting resolution of the dispute that arose between the petitioner, corpus and parents of corpus.

15. This Court therefore issues a writ of habeas corpus directing Nari Niketan at Pathar Khera District Betul (M.P.) to release the corpus forthwith and allow her to exercise right to personal liberty. Before parting, this Court would like to add that role of the father of the corpus does not come to an end if the corpus gets married (to anyone). The father continues to be father even after marriage of his daughter and, therefore, is equally entitled to ensure the safety and security of the daughter. Thus, this Court expects that the father of the c