Bombay High Court Upholds Woman’s Autonomy Against Forced Marriage

The Bombay High Court recently underscored the autonomy of a 21-year-old woman who chose to leave her family home in Hyderabad to live independently in Mumbai, affirming that her decision is protected under the Constitution. The court ruled that neither the State nor her parents can force her to return home or compel her into an undesired marriage, referencing the case XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

A division bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad emphasized that personal choices relating to residence, marriage, and education are safeguarded by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. These rights cannot be overridden even by parental assurances, highlighting the importance of individual autonomy.

In their judgment, the bench stated, “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. Neither her parents nor the State can compel her to return to her parental home against her wishes.”

The court’s observations came during the hearing of a petition filed by the woman, seeking protection from threats and harassment by her family. She left Hyderabad on June 15, expressing her unwillingness to marry her cousin, who is approximately ten years her senior, and instead voiced her desire to pursue higher education and gain financial independence.

The court took note of her assertion that she hailed from a conservative and orthodox family environment, which left little room for her personal views and caused her emotional trauma. Following her departure, her family registered a missing person complaint with the Hyderabad police, prompting her to approach the Bombay High Court fearing a forced marriage and disruption of her educational pursuits.

Before issuing any orders, the judges privately interviewed the woman, without her parents present. They found her to be mature, articulate, and fully aware of her choices, with no indications of coercion or undue influence. She informed the court of her current employment with an NGO in Mumbai, her living situation as a paying guest, and her self-employment as an online reviewer. She was adamant about not returning home or marrying against her will.

The court also communicated separately with her parents, who submitted an affidavit promising not to coerce her into marriage or obstruct her education. While acknowledging these assurances, the bench stressed that they must not infringe on their daughter’s personal decisions.

Concluding that there was “no justification” to continue treating the woman as a missing person or to maintain any coercive measures for her return to Hyderabad, the court instructed the Telangana Police to take appropriate steps to close the missing person report.

Senior advocate Mihir Desai, along with advocates Devyani Kulkarni, Rishika Agarwal, and Sanskruti Yagnik, represented the woman. Additional public prosecutor MM Deshmukh represented the State, while Advocate Swati Sinha appeared for the woman’s parents.