The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has ruled that an adult woman has the fundamental right to choose her own partner and place of residence, even if the person she chooses to live with is already married. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal affirmed that an adult woman “cannot be treated like Chasser” and has a right to make her own decisions, “whether right or wrong.”
The Court disposed of a writ petition filed on behalf of the parents of an adult woman, referred to as ‘X’ in the proceedings, who had eloped.
Background of the Case
The matter was brought before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 31544 of 2025. The corpus, ‘X’, whose age was undisputedly over 18 years, was produced before the bench. When questioned by the judges, ‘X’ unequivocally stated that she wished to live with the person with whom she had eloped.
Arguments of the Parties
Shri Aayush Sharma, appearing for the petitioner, argued that ‘X’ should be directed to live with her parents. The primary ground for this submission was that the person with whom she had eloped and intended to live was a married man.
Representing the State, Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Deputy Advocate General, submitted that according to instructions received from the police, the man in question had already separated from his first wife and was in the process of seeking a divorce.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court, in its order authored by Justice Atul Sreedharan, centered its analysis on the undisputed fact that ‘X’ is an adult. The bench firmly asserted her autonomy in personal matters. “She has a right and a mind of her own and the right to make a decision, whether right or wrong, with regard to the person with whom she wants to live,” the Court observed.
Addressing the petitioner’s central argument about the man’s marital status, the Court found no legal impediment to the arrangement. The judgment noted, “As regards the person with whom she wants to live being married, there is no law that prevents her from living along with the said person.”
The bench further clarified the legal position on bigamy, stating that if ‘X’ were to marry the man, it would constitute a non-cognizable offence. In such a scenario, the Court explained, “only the first wife can register a case against her husband and her if such an eventuality takes place, to prosecute them for bigamy.”
Declining to comment on the moral dimensions of the situation, the Court stated, “Be that as it may, as this Court cannot pontificate on matters relating to morality and once having observed that the Corpus ‘X’ has a right to stay with whom she wants to stay with and as she has declined to stay with her parents…” the petition could not be sustained.
Final Decision
Based on its findings, the High Court disposed of the writ petition. It directed the police, specifically Shri Manish Tripathi, D.S.P., Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, to release ‘X’. The release was made conditional upon two requirements: first, taking an undertaking from ‘X’ confirming she is going to live with the person of her choice, and second, taking an endorsement from the man confirming that he has accepted her company.
