Bombay High Court Upholds Woman's Right to Choose Education Over Forced Marriage
The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed an adult woman's constitutional right to choose her residence, marriage, and education, protecting a 21-year-old who left her parents' home after facing pressure to marry her cousin. The court directed the Telangana Police to close the missing person report filed by her parents, stating that she was acting voluntarily.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad held that the woman, a resident of Telangana now living in Maharashtra, was legally competent to make her own decisions. “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 the 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 noted in its July 2 order.
The woman, represented by Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, sought protection from threats and harassment from her family. She had completed Class 12 and left home to avoid marrying her cousin, who was ten years older. Desai argued that she came from an “extremely conservative and orthodox family” with little freedom to express her views, and that she aspired to pursue higher education and financial independence, which her parents opposed.
After her parents filed a missing person complaint, the woman approached the Bombay High Court, fearing she could be forced into marriage. The court interacted with her in chambers and found her “mature, articulate and fully conscious of the consequences.” She expressed genuine apprehension that her biological family and community could force her to return to Telangana or pose a threat to her safety, and that she would be prevented from pursuing education.
The judges also spoke with her adoptive parents, who assured the court they would not coerce her into marriage or obstruct her education. However, the woman unequivocally refused to return to her parents' home, though she agreed to stay in regular communication. The court ruled that the parents’ assurances cannot override her choices. It directed the Telangana Police to take appropriate legal steps to close the missing person report and stated that no coercive process should be used to secure her return.
The judgment underscores the constitutional protection of personal autonomy for adults, particularly women facing familial pressure. It serves as a reminder that adult individuals have the right to make independent decisions about their lives, including marriage and education, free from coercion.
