The Bombay High Court has ruled that an adult woman is legally competent to make her own decisions regarding her place of residence, marriage, and higher education, declaring these choices to be protected personal rights under the Constitution. A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge, and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad granted relief to a 21-year-old petitioner seeking protection against being forced to return to her parental home. The Court held that neither her parents nor the State could compel her to return against her wishes, and directed the police authorities to close the missing person report registered by her family.
Background of the Case
The petitioner is a 21-year-old woman who completed her education up to the 12th standard in an English medium school and resided with her adoptive parents in Hyderabad, Telangana. On June 15, 2026, she voluntarily left her parental home because she was unwilling to marry her cousin, who is approximately ten years older than her.
Aspiring to pursue higher education and attain financial independence, the petitioner stated that her parents were unwilling to permit her to do so or study abroad unless she accepted the proposed marriage. She asserted that she belonged to an extremely conservative and orthodox family where she faced emotional trauma and had little freedom to express her views. Following her departure, her parents lodged a missing person complaint with the Hyderabad Police. Apprehending that she might be compelled to marry against her wishes, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking protection and a directive to prevent authorities from taking coercive actions to force her return.
Proceedings and Arguments of the Parties
Although the parents were not originally arrayed as respondents, the Court permitted them to participate in the proceedings through their advocate. The father, who is paralyzed, and the mother were both present in court. The mother submitted a personal affidavit undertaking that the petitioner would not be compelled or coerced into marrying against her wishes, and that no obstruction would be caused to her pursuing higher education.
The Court conducted an extensive interaction with the petitioner in chambers, separately from her parents, to understand the circumstances under which she left home. The petitioner answered all queries with clarity and confidence. She clarified that apart from her apprehensions regarding forced marriage and educational restrictions, she had no other grievances against her adoptive parents, who had raised her since she was two months old. However, she expressed a genuine fear that members of her biological family and community might try to force her back to Hyderabad.
Following individual discussions, the Court allowed the petitioner and her parents to interact. Although the parents made earnest requests and assurances, the petitioner firmly reiterated her decision not to return home at present, while assuring them that she would remain in regular communication and that they did not need to worry about her safety.
The Court’s Analysis and Key Observations
Following these interactions, the bench expressed complete satisfaction that the petitioner had left her home voluntarily and was acting of her own free will. The judges found her to be mature, articulate, and fully conscious of the consequences of her decisions. Currently residing as a paying guest in Mumbai, the petitioner works at a non-governmental organization (NGO) and is self-employed by reviewing books and online content on social media platforms.
Delivering the judgment, Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed:
“She is an adult, being 21 years of age and is legally competent to decide where she wishes to reside, whether she wishes to marry and whether she desires to pursue higher education. These are matters of personal choice and a part of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court further emphasized:
“Neither her parents nor the State can compel her to return to her parental home against her wishes.”
The Court accepted the undertakings given in the mother’s affidavit but maintained that such parental assurances cannot override the independent choices of an adult.
Decision of the Court
Finding no legal basis to restrict the petitioner’s movements, the Court held:
“In these circumstances, there is no justification for treating the Petitioner as a missing person or for continuing any coercive process intended to secure her return to Hyderabad.”
The High Court allowed the petition, directing the Telangana Police to take appropriate steps to close the missing person report in accordance with law. The Court ordered that the petitioner must not be compelled, directly or indirectly, to return to her parental home, nor should she be subjected to any pressure under the threat of criminal proceedings or otherwise.
Case Details
Case Title: Safia Sultana Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 3151 of 2026
Bench: ACJ Ravindra V. Ghuge & Justice Gautam A. Ankhad
Date: July 2, 2026
