The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday rejected a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking mental evaluation of her 21-year-old daughter, a Sikh woman, who had chosen to live with her Muslim lover.

A vacation bench of Justices Suraj Govindaraj and K Manmadha Rao held that no forced mental evaluation could be directed against the will of a major woman who had categorically stated before the Court that she was residing with her lover out of her own free will and volition.

“Why should anybody undergo evaluation merely because you ask for it? You can only apply under the Mental Healthcare Act and follow that procedure. Otherwise, we cannot do it like that,” the Court made it clear.

This was after the woman told the Court that she had been pressured by her parents and certain Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) members into making earlier accusations against her lover.

“I had written this letter (against lover containing rape and religious conversion allegations ) under pressure. My dad and mom made me meet RSS people and made me write this letter. None of this is true — neither the conversion nor the rape. They threatened me and made me write this under pressure,” she said.

Since the major daughter made it clear that she was living with her lover out of her own free will, the Court said that it cannot interfere.

“The so-called detenue/daughter being major in age and having expressed that she wishes to stay with Respondent No.5, of her own free will and volition, we are of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out. The counsel for the mother requests for mental evaluation/examination of the detenue. We are of the considered opinion that there cannot be any such forced mental evaluation against the will of the so-called detenue.”

Rejecting the request, the Court further said,

“No grounds being made out, the daughter staying with her lover of her own free will and volition, the petition stands dismissed.”

The mother who professes Sikh faith moved the Court taking objection to her daughter living with a Muslim man.

Advocate Rahul Reddy, appearing for the mother, argued that the daughter had previously undergone therapy and psychological treatment and urged the Court to order a mental health assessment to ascertain whether her consent was informed and voluntary.

Referring to medical records and discharge summaries from NIMHANS, Reddy submitted that she had been advised continued therapy, counselling and follow-up treatment.

The counsel further claimed that the daughter had a history of psychological evaluation and submitted that the case involved “nascent adult regulation”, warranting an independent assessment of her mental condition.

He further contended that there were contradictions in the daughter’s earlier statements, including allegations of rape, forceful religious conversion and threats to her life contained in letters allegedly written by her to doctors.

However, the daughter who was present before the Court, denied the allegations made by her mother and declined to accompany her parents.

“All the allegations that they put on me by putting me in NIMHANS and claiming that I’m mad is all fake. I have been stable and I don’t know why they’ve been troubling me and harassing me like this,” she said.

She also alleged that the letters claimed to have been written by her against her lover were done after pressure by her parents and certain RSS members.

The Court further noted that it was not competent to independently assess the woman in chambers and observed that the confidence with which she made her statements disproved the submissions made by the mother against her mental health.

“She categorically states that she is with respondent no.5/her lover of her own free will and volition and that she is not being held by anybody against her wishes,” the Court noted.

It also recorded her statement that she did not wish to go with her mother and intended to continue residing with her lover.

The bench further noted that the police had secured her presence before the Court and that she had categorically stated that the allegations made in the petition were false.

Hence, it dismissed the plea by the mother.