Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a habeas-corpus order placing a 19-year-old woman in her father’s custody because her partner was below the male marriageable age. Both were adults and entitled to live together even outside wedlock. The Court found it unnecessary to determine the marriage question in detail. It expressly left the woman free to decide with whom to live rather than directing her custody to either man.
Issues
- Whether doubts about the marriage justified giving an adult woman’s custody to her father.
- Whether two adults could choose to live together outside wedlock.
- What relief respected the woman’s own choice.
Held
- The woman was admittedly an adult. The High Court’s concern about her partner being below 21 did not justify treating her as a minor and entrusting her custody to her father. (¶¶ 2, 4, 7, 8)
- Both partners were majors and could live together even outside wedlock. The Court stated that the man being below 21 did not by itself make the Hindu marriage null and void, but expressly declined to examine the marriage question in detail because adulthood and freedom of choice sufficed for the appeal. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10)
- In habeas-corpus proceedings concerning an adult’s choice, the court must protect liberty and ascertain independent wishes rather than assume a parental or super-guardian role. The judgment applied the principles discussed in Shafin Jahan and Soni Gerry. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The earlier expression of a wish to live with the appellant did not justify a compulsory direction to do so. Since the woman was not a party and did not appear in the appeal, the Court expressly preserved her freedom to choose with whom she would live. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order entrusting the adult woman’s custody to her father set aside. Her freedom to choose with whom to live expressly preserved.