Bombay HC comes to rescue of 21-year-old woman who left home to escape forced marriage by parents

The Bombay High Court recently held that a 21‑year‑old woman who left her parents’ home in Hyderabad to live independently in Mumbai is exercising her constitutionally protected personal autonomy and neither the State nor her parents can compel her to return or push her into a marriage against her wishes [XYZ v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]

A division bench of acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad underscored that questions of residence, marriage and higher education are matters of personal choice protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and cannot be overridden even by parental assurances.  

“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 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 observed. 

The observations were made in an order passed on a petition filed by the woman who sought directions seeking protection from threats and harassment by family members. 

The woman left her Hyderabad home on June 15, stating that she was unwilling to marry her cousin, about ten years older than her, and wished instead to pursue higher education and financial independence. 

The Court noted her assertion that she came from an extremely conservative and orthodox family with little space for her views and that she was subjected to emotional trauma. 

After her departure, her parents approached the Hyderabad police with a missing person complaint, prompting her to move the Bombay High Court apprehending forced marriage and obstruction to her education.  

Before passing any order, the judges met the woman in their chamber without her parents and found her mature, articulate and fully conscious of the consequences of her decisions, with nothing to suggest coercion or influence. 

She told the court she was working with an NGO in Mumbai, staying as a paying guest, and self‑employed as an online reviewer, and reiterated her clear wish not to return home or marry against her will.  

The Court also interacted separately with her parents, who filed an affidavit undertaking that she would not be compelled to marry and that no obstruction would be caused to her further studies.

While accepting these assurances, the bench emphasised that they cannot override their daughter’s choices. 

The Court found “no justification” to treat the woman as a missing person or to continue any coercive process to secure her return to Hyderabad. Hence, it directed the Telangana Police to take appropriate steps to close the missing person report. 

Senior advocate Mihir Desai with advocates Devyani Kulkarni, Rishika Agarwal and Sanskruti Yagnik appeared for the woman. 

Additional public prosecutor MM Deshmukh appeared for the State. 

Advocate Swati Sinha appeared for the parents of the woman. 

[Read Order]