A major has the right to choose their life partner, and parental consent cannot override this decision when the individual is capable of understanding the implications.

JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioner is concerned with the alleged illegal detention of the daughter of respondents 4 and 5, whose brother is the 6th respondent. Due to the relationship with the petitioner, the party respondents have restrained her on coming to know of a notice given under the Special Marriage Act .

2. We directed the police to get a statement of the alleged detenue, who is the daughter of the 4th respondent, without presence or interference of her parents or any family members. A report has been filed by the 3rd respondent along with a statement obtained from the alleged detenue through a woman Civil Police Officer.

3. The daughter of the 4th respondent, in her statement, admits the relationship with the petitioner whom she contacted through Instagram. They both are Hindus, belonging to different communities and she also accepts the fact that her family is against the marriage.

She categorically states that she has not been physically tortured, nor kept under illegal restrainment. But, her mobile phone has been taken away from her. She also stated in the statement that she wants to marry the petitioner and live with him. She also has submitted that her family consents to a marriage after her studies and she wants to talk with the petitioner about this. However, she apprehends that her family may not agree to the marriage eventually. She stated her date of birth as 10.05.2002 in her statement, obviously to inform us that she is a major. We, hence, felt that we should directly interact with her and we directed her to be produced.

4. Today, the alleged detenue was produced and she categorically informed us that she wants to go along with the petitioner. We asked whether her parents accompanied her. She replied that her parents will not allow her to go with the petitioner and she is before this Court with a cousin of her's. We interacted with the alleged detenue's cousin. He said that he had been instructed to bring the subject to the Court. He says that she is his sister (cousin). On a specific query whether why her parents did not accompany her, he said that they did not have the courage to see their only child going away with the petitioner. He also informed us that the family assured to get her married to the petitioner itself after two years, i.e., after her studies. We, hence, again interacted with the alleged detenue and advised her to go with her cousin back to her family to complete her studies and then if she still desire to get married to the petitioner himself, after studies. However, the subject was very adamant and told us unequivocally that she would not return to her family house. In such circumstance, we find no other way than to send her along with the petitioner especially when the subject is a major and on our interaction, capable of understanding the pros and cons of her decision.

We allow the writ petition, without any order as to costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE Vku/-

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 165/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAR CARD OF THE DETINUE ABHIVANDANA.

Exhibit P3 COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CONCERNED POLICE STATION DATED 5.6.2021.