The Bombay High Court has ruled that an adult woman possesses the absolute right to decide where she lives, whom she marries, and whether she pursues higher education, stating that neither family nor the state can force her to act against her wishes.
The ruling was delivered by a bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad in a July 2 order. The court provided protection to a 21-year-old woman who fled her family home in Telangana to Maharashtra after facing pressure to marry her cousin. The judges directed the Telangana Police to close a missing person report filed by her parents and ordered that she must not face any coercion to return home.
Justice Ankhad, writing for the bench, emphasized that these decisions are fundamental matters of personal choice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court declared that as a 21-year-old adult, the woman is legally competent to make her own decisions regarding her residence, marriage, and studies.
Judicial Evaluation Of Petitioner
During a private interaction in chambers, the judges found the woman to be mature, articulate, and fully aware of the consequences of her choices. The bench noted there was no indication that she was acting under any coercion, outside influence, or inducement.
The petitioner, who is self-employed, had approached the court seeking protection from potential threats, harassment, or harm from her family. Her representative, Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, explained that she comes from an extremely conservative background where she had little freedom to express herself and experienced trauma. Desai noted that she left home after completing Class 12 because her parents opposed her goals of pursuing higher education and achieving financial independence, trying instead to force her to marry a cousin who is ten years her senior.
Family Assurances And Safety Concerns
While the woman expressed no grievances against her adoptive parents—with whom she has lived since infancy—she told the court she had genuine fears that her biological family and community would try to force her back to Telangana or threaten her safety.
The judges also spoke separately with her adoptive parents, who assured the court they would not block her education or force her into marriage. The bench ruled, however, that these parental assurances cannot override the woman’s personal choices.
Although she unequivocally refused to return to her family home, the petitioner promised to remain in regular communication with her parents so they would not worry about her safety or try to track her down. The court concluded that there was no legal justification to treat the woman as a missing person or to continue any coercive measures to force her return.
