A person has the right to choose their marital partner free from undue influence or coercion, necessitating judicial intervention when personal freedom is at stake.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner alleges that the ‘alleged detenue’ – whom he intends to marry – is being detained by the party respondents – her parents, because they are not in approval of their relationship.

2. The ‘alleged detenue’ was produced before us by the party respondents on 12.01.2026 when, after interacting with her, we passed the following order:

The ‘alleged detenue’ has been produced before us by the party respondents.

2. When we interacted with the ‘alleged detenue’, we found her to be extremely confused, giving us one version and then another, totally distinct from each other.

3. We allowed the ‘alleged detenue’ to be with her parents, namely the party respondents, for some time; and thereafter, when we talked to her, she merely told us that she is afraid of them because they never stood with her in her “decisions”.

4. The demeanor of the ‘alleged detenue’

indicates that she is under tremendous amount of pressure, perhaps being torn between the two forces that are now in her life. We are certain that she requires some time to contemplate and reflect upon herself. The ‘alleged detenue’ initially told us that she would like to stay in a “neutral facility”, but thereafter agreed to go with the party respondents on their assurance that she would not be forced into a marriage by them.

We, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 19.01.2026; on which day, the party respondents will produce the ‘alleged detenue’ before us for further orders and consideration.

3. Today, the ‘alleged detenue’ affirmed that she wants to go with the petitioner. Even though her parents tried to persuade her in our presence, she did not change her mind at all and became more adamant.

4. The party respondents, however, submitted that their daughter has been taken into some kind of influence by the petitioner and his family; and that their real intention is to make her convert into a different religion, which she had attempted in the past. They pleaded with us that she be not allowed to go with the petitioner.

5. We, thereupon, talked to the petitioner and his father –

who was also present in person. The father of the petitioner informed us that he is fully aware of the relationship of his son with the ‘alleged detenue’ and that he welcomes their marriage;

further adding that, after such event, the couple will live with him in his residence. He further submitted that he or his son has no intention of converting the ‘alleged detenue’ into their religion and that she can live her life as a ‘Hindu’, even after marriage. This has been fully affirmed and endorsed by the petitioner also, which is recorded.

6. Obviously, we are enjoined to exercise jurisdiction when the ‘alleged detenue’ tells us that she is under detention by her parents and that her intent is to marry the petitioner.

In the afore circumstances, we allow this Writ Petition and order that the ‘alleged detenue’ is left at liberty, to live her life in the manner she desires.

Even though this Writ Petition is disposed of in the afore manner, since we are concerned of the well being of the ‘alleged detenue’, we order that this matter be listed for a report from the 3^rd respondent on 27.01.2026 who will inform us whether the marriage between the petitioner and the ‘alleged detenue’ has been solemnised, as also the manner in which they are subsequently residing.

Adverting to the need of protecting the privacy of the alleged detenue and her family, we direct the Registry to anonymise her name and details, as also that of the party respondents and the petitioner in all the papers.

Sd/-