"Woman's Autonomy Not Defined By Family Obligation": HC Rejects Father's Plea For Custody Of Adult Daughter Living Separately From Husband

Observing that "the identity and autonomy of an adult woman are not defined by her relationships or familial obligations", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected the habeas corpus plea of a father who sought custody of his 30-year-old daughter, allegedly for sending her back to her matrimonial home.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "the Constitution safeguards her right to live freely and make her own choices, without external interference. The notion that her father, or anyone else, can impose their will upon her based on a perceived social role is a direct affront to the right of equality and personal liberty enshrined in our constitution."

The judge added, "this Court, therefore, must ensure that the alleged detenue's rights are protected, and her autonomy is respected, without yielding to extraneous considerations. While the concerns of the petitioner, are understandable, they cannot override the alleged detenue's constitutional rights to personal liberty."

These observations were made in response to the habeas corpus plea filed by a father seeking directions to release his daughter from alleged illegal custody of a man. However in a statement before a Judicial Magistrate she submitted that she is living alone and don't want to return to his abusive father and brother who are harassing her to return to his abusive husband.

However, the counsel for the petitioner argued that the custody of the alleged detenue must be entrusted to the petitioner, who is her father.

Furthermore, it was highlighted that the two minor children of the alleged detenue are suffering due to her separation from her husband, making it imperative for her to return to the petitioner's home to care for them after bringing them back from her matrimonial home.

Counsel for the petitioner also urged the Court to give due consideration to the legitimate concerns of a father who is worried about the safety and well being of his daughter, as well as the social reputation of both his family and his daughter.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said, "The writ of Habeas Corpus is one of the most powerful tools designed to protect individual liberty against illegal detention. Its core object is to ensure that no person is deprived of their freedom without legitimate cause. When a petition for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus is brought before the Court, it is tasked with examining whether the alleged detenue has been illegally detained. The ambit of this writ is confined strictly to assessing the legality of the detention, and thus, the Court must act within this defined scope."

The Court noted that the alleged detenue is an adult woman aged 30 years, "has unequivocally declared that she does not wish to return to the petitioner, her father."

It rejected the petitioner's argument that "the alleged detenue's choice to live separate from her father, may result in social repercussions, which the Court should consider, and that denying custody to the petitioner would amount to injustice to him and other family members, including her minor children."

"However, such arguments, irrespective of their intent, fall outside the purview of this Court in the context of a Writ of Habeas Corpus," the Court observed.

Justice Kaul highlighted that, "It is imperative to emphasize that once the alleged detenue, who is a fully mature adult, capable of making her own decisions, has clearly expressed her desire to live independently, this Court cannot override her will. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a constitutional mechanism to protect the personal liberty of an individual, and the Court is constitutionally bound to uphold this right. It cannot, and should not, compel an adult to return to the custody of another, even if that person is a well-meaning parent."

Stating that "no ground is made out for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the official respondents to release" the alleged detenue has been made, it dismissed the plea.

Ms. Malkit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Manish Bansal, P.P., U.T., Chandigarh with Mr. Shubham Mangla, Advocate for the respondent-U.T., Chandigarh.

Title: XXXX v. State of Punjab

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 236

Click here to read/download the order