AMARAVATI: <\/em>In a strong decision favouring personal choice and preventing misuse of law against men, the Andhra Pradesh High Court<\/a><\/strong> led by Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy<\/strong> and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela<\/strong> refused to interfere in a habeas corpus petition<\/strong> filed by parents seeking custody of their adult daughter. The Court made it clear that once a woman becomes major, she has full legal freedom to decide her life<\/strong>, including marriage and where she wants to live.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court verified her age and recorded that she is a major<\/strong>, noting that this fact was not denied by her parents. The girl firmly refused to go back<\/strong> with them even after interaction and clearly expressed her wish to stay with her husband. This became the decisive factor<\/strong> in the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judges made a clear legal position and observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTherefore, as she has with free will and volition voluntarily married respondent No.7 after attaining majority and she has expressed her intention to live and stay with him only, it cannot be said that she has been illegally confined or detained by respondent No.7.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further reinforced the autonomy of an adult woman by stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs she is a major, she has every right to take a decision as to with whom she intends to stay and live.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On the maintainability of the case, the Court categorically held, \u201cTherefore, the writ petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Even after giving an opportunity to the parents to speak with their daughter, the Court noted that she remained firm in her decision and therefore permitted her to continue living with her husband.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The parents also alleged that the relationship began when she was a minor and that the police failed to act earlier. On this issue, the Court clarified that such grievances can be pursued through appropriate legal remedies,<\/strong> but they cannot be used to sustain a habeas corpus petition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition<\/strong> and upheld the woman\u2019s right to choose her partner,<\/strong> making it clear that courts will not allow misuse of habeas corpus to interfere in voluntary relationships or to harass men when the woman is acting on her own free will.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Explanation (Simple Indian English)<\/strong><\/td> Role in Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Article 226 of Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Gives High Courts power to issue writs like habeas corpus<\/td> Petition filed under this to bring daughter back<\/td><\/tr> Writ of Habeas Corpus<\/strong><\/td> Legal remedy to produce a person alleged to be illegally detained<\/td> Court said not applicable as no illegal detention<\/td><\/tr> Section 151 CPC<\/strong><\/td> Inherent powers of Court to pass orders for justice<\/td> Used for interim requests like custody<\/td><\/tr> POCSO Act, 2012<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Law to protect minors from sexual offences<\/td> Parents alleged offence under this<\/td><\/tr> Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a><\/strong><\/td> New criminal law replacing IPC<\/td> Allegations sought under this law<\/td><\/tr> Sakiri Vasu vs State of UP (2008)<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court case on remedy when police don\u2019t act<\/td> Court said parents can use proper remedy, not habeas corpus<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n