Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently rejected a habeas corpus plea by a father of a 30-year-old woman living separately from her husband and family, saying that the identity and autonomy of an adult woman are not defined by her relationships or familial obligations.
High Court took note of the statement of the woman
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, while rejecting the plea of the father for custody of his daughter, took note the statement of the woman recorded before a judicial magistrate saying that she does not wish to return to her father due to continuous physical harassment by her brothers who have been pressuring her to return to her matrimonial home and live with her abusive husband, from whom she has separated and that she is presently residing separately from both her father and her husband out of her own free will without any coercion or pressure.
Her choice to live separate from her father may result in social repercussions, father’s counsel told High Court
The counsel representing the father of the woman persistently presented arguments rooted in social concerns and potential consequences of the alleged detenue’s decision to live independently, submitting that her choice to live separate from her father may result in social repercussions, which the court should consider, and that denying custody to her father would amount to injustice to him and other family members, including her minor children.
Essence of the writ of habeas corpus is to uphold the freedom and autonomy of individuals
“In the present case, the alleged detenue, an adult woman aged 30 years, has unequivocally declared that she does not wish to return to the petitioner, her father. This court has carefully considered her statement and now must ascertain whether her continued absence from the petitioner and her family constitutes illegal detention. The essence of the writ of habeas corpus is to uphold the freedom and autonomy of individuals, ensuring that no person is detained against their will without lawful cause,” the High Court said.
The High Court further said 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, the court cannot override her will.
Court cannot, and should not, compel an adult to return to custody of another, even if that person is a well-meaning parent: HC
“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,” the High Court said and added, “The role of the court is not to enforce social norms or morality but to uphold the principles of constitutional morality.”
An adult woman, like any other citizen, possesses right to be treated as an independent and autonomous individual: HC
The High Court, while rejecting the submissions of the counsel of petitioner father that a father would be a better custodian of an adult woman than she herself is, said that submission is not only antiquated but also runs contrary to the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and it is crucial to reaffirm that an adult woman, like any other citizen, possesses the right to be treated as an independent and autonomous individual, free from coercion and undue influence.
“Furthermore, the identity and autonomy of an adult woman are not defined by her relationships or familial obligations. 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 High Court said.
While concerns of father are understandable, they cannot override alleged detenue’s constitutional rights to personal liberty: HC
The High Court further said that it 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,” the High Court said while dismissing the plea of the petitioner father seeking the custody of his 30-year-old daughter living separately from her husband and family.
