Kerala High Court: In a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner regarding the illegal detention of his girlfriend by her father, the Division Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan V* and P.M. Manoj, JJ., allowed the writ petition while holding that personal liberty and expression of choice of a person is paramount and that even parental love and concern cannot curtail the right of a person to marry the individual of their choice.
Background
The petitioner, a civil engineer and part-time research assistant in Germany, was in an intimate relationship with the daughter of respondent 3. The petitioner and respondent 3 belong to different religions, and respondent 3 was opposed to the relationship, detaining his daughter illegally and against her will.
The Court, in an order dated 28-05-2024, had directed respondent 2 to ensure the presence of his daughter before the Court on 31-05-2024.
On 31-05-2024, the daughter interacted with the Court virtually and informed the Court that she was indeed being detained against her will by her father. She further stated that she was 27 years old, gainfully employed, and wished to be with the petitioner.
Decision and Analysis
The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368, wherein it was held that the purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to ensure that a person is not deprived of their liberty, and that it is the primary duty of the State to protect this right.
The Court opined that it is its duty to ensure the detenu is produced before it to determine their independent choice and to ensure they are released from illegal restraint.
The Court viewed that parental love or concern could not interfere with an individual’s right to choose whom they wish to marry.
Therefore, the Court allowed the writ and set the daughter of respondent 3 at liberty to join the petitioner.
[Althaf J Muhammed v. The District Police Chief, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 2835, decided on 03-06-2024]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate for the Petitioner: Nobel Raju, C. R. Jayakumar, Aleena Jose, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondents: T. Sanjay, Sanil Kumar G., Advocates
