Back
Even Genuine Parental Concern Cannot Override Major's Right To Choose Life Partner: Allahabad High Court
The has firmly declared that even the most genuine parental concern cannot override the of a individual to choose a life partner. Justice Sandeep Jain, presiding over a petition, held that the right to choose one’s spouse is a fundamental facet of under .
The ruling came in a petition filed by a young woman, Smt. Moni, who claimed she was being illegally detained by her father after voluntarily marrying Mohit, the man of her choice. The court not only set her at liberty to reside with her husband but also directed the State to ensure the couple’s safety.
A Marriage Against Parental Wishes
The case arose when Smt. Moni, born on , and thus a , solemnized her marriage with Mohit on . Her father, Sanjeev, opposed the union. According to the husband’s counsel, after the wedding, the woman was kept in by her father and relatives. When the police refused to register an FIR, she herself filed a complaint under before a competent court in Budaun on , seeking action against her father.
The father denied any illegal detention, claiming his daughter was voluntarily residing at home. The State informed the court that a missing person report had been lodged and the girl was recovered and handed over to her father. However, noting from documents that the woman had attained majority, the High Court directed her production in court on .
‘ ’
On , Justice Jain interacted personally with Smt. Moni to ascertain her age, voluntariness, and circumstances. She stated her date of birth as , confirming her majority, and disclosed that she had completed education up to Class X. She unequivocally stated that her marriage to Mohit was “solemnized of her own and without any , or pressure from any quarter.” She expressed a clear desire to reside with her husband in their matrimonial home.
The husband also confirmed the marriage and his willingness to live with her. Even the father, though disappointed, admitted that his daughter had attained majority. The court found the woman’s statement to be “ ,” with nothing in her demeanour suggesting .
Parental Concern vs. Constitutional Mandate
The High Court emphasized that once a person attains majority, they are entitled to make independent choices about their life, including the choice of a spouse. “Such a choice cannot be dictated or substituted by the wishes of the parents or other relatives merely because they may consider the decision to be undesirable or unacceptable,” Justice Jain observed.
Rejecting the notion that parental concern could override individual autonomy, the court stated:
“The parental concern, however genuine, cannot override the of a individual. The right to choose one's partner is a facet of , and the State and its instrumentalities are required to respect such autonomy, subject of course to the requirements of law.”
The court further noted that the woman had expressed no apprehension of or at the hands of her husband.
Liberty with Protection
Concluding that Smt. Moni was a exercising her , Justice Jain held that she “cannot be compelled to return to or remain in the custody of her parents against her wishes.” The court set her at liberty to go with Mohit and reside with him at a place of her choice.
The court directed that no person, including her parents or relatives, shall interfere with her choice or subject her to any threat, , intimidation, or harassment. The State authorities were ordered to ensure the safety and security of the couple and to provide necessary protection if any threat to their life or liberty is brought to notice. The police were specifically directed to escort the couple safely from the court premises to their preferred destination without obstruction.
With these directions, the petition was allowed, reinforcing the principle that individual liberty and dignity remain paramount, even in the face of genuine familial concerns.
