Right to choose partner rests exclusively with individual: Bombay HC

The right to choose life partner rests exclusively with the individual, and neither the state nor society can interfere with it, the Bombay high court (HC) said on Tuesday while deciding a habeas corpus petition

The right to choose life partner rests exclusively with the individual, and neither the state nor society can interfere with it, the Bombay high court (HC) said on Tuesday while deciding a habeas corpus petition.

HT Image

“Intimacies of marriage, including the choices which individuals make on whether or not to marry and on whom to marry, lie outside the control of the state,” said the division bench of justice VK Jadhav and justice Shrikant Kulkarni.

The petition was filed by Junned Khan, a teacher from Parbhani for a direction to Aurangabad police to bring back his daughter, Khaleda, who had eloped with her boyfriend against his wishes.

Khan contended that his daughter was kidnapped from Aurangabad in October 2019, when she was minor, and an offence was registered by Chawani police station. He added that one Furkan Khan from Pusad in Yavatmal district was her kidnapper and complained that despite pointing out this fact to police, they did not take any action to trace his daughter. He had, therefore, moved HC seeking a direction to the police to trace and produce his daughter before the court.

While the petition was pending, police traced Furkan at Hyderabad and on June 10 produced Khaleda before HC bench headed by justice Ravindra Ghuge. Khaleda informed the bench that she had left her relative’s place at Aurangabad on her own volition and went to Furkan.

She further informed the HC that Furkan had sent a marriage proposal for her, but her parents rejected it though she wanted to marry him. She was allegedly beaten when she insisted on marrying Furkan, and eventually left her parents’ house. She said she had given birth to a baby boy in September 2020.

HC had then sent Khaleda and her son to a women’s hostel.

On Tuesday, when the matter came up for hearing again, Junned’s counsel urged HC to invoke parens patriae jurisdiction and pass appropriate orders in the interest of the girl, claiming that she was still a “vulnerable adult”.

HC, however, rejected the plea saying it was not a case for exercising the jurisdiction.

The court said while the petitioner might have acted in good faith to protect the interest of his daughter, his intentions cannot be given effect to at the cost of his daughter’s fundamental right to choose her life partner.