The Kerala High Court, in adjudicating upon the matter, affirmed the fundamental right of an adult woman to exercise her discretion in selecting a spouse, thereby emphasizing the non-restriction of this prerogative by a parent's affection and concern upon the attainment of majority. Presiding over a Division Bench, Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V and PM Manoj directed the liberation of a 27-year-old woman from the custodial restraint imposed by her father, who had detained her due to her involvement with the petitioner, a person of divergent religious affiliation.
The court expounded upon the principle that parental sentiments should not supersede an adult's volition in matrimonial decisions, as enunciated in its decree issued on June 3. This ruling emanated from a Habeas Corpus petition presented by the petitioner, a Master's student domiciled in Germany, who asserted an intimate relationship with a woman serving as a Project Engineer. The petitioner alleged that the woman's father objected to their liaison on religious grounds, thereby effectuating her detention.
In the pursuit of elucidating the circumstances, the Court convened a virtual interaction via video conference involving the woman, her father, and the petitioner. During this discourse, the woman delineated her involuntary confinement by her father and expressed an intention to unite with the petitioner.
Relying on the precedent established in the Supreme Court's judgment in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan KM (Hadiya case), the Court underscored the paramount importance of according due respect to an individual's autonomous choice and ensuring liberation from unlawful restraint. It underscored that an individual's autonomy must be safeguarded in accordance with the provisions enshrined in the Constitution, provided it remains within the confines of legal parameters.
The Court, encapsulating its judicial stance, articulated that its mandate encompasses the assurance of the detainee's appearance before it, determination of their independent choice, and facilitation of their release from illicit restraint. It emphasized the constitutional guarantee of the fundamental right to choice as enshrined in Articles 19 and 21, subject to conformity with a valid legal framework.
Consequently, the Court adjudged in favor of the petitioner, thereby enabling the woman to emancipate herself from her father's custody and affiliate with the petitioner. Advocates Nobel Raju, CR Rajakumar, and Aleena Jose acted as legal representatives for the petitioner, whereas Advocates T Sanjay and Sanil Kumar G discharged their responsibilities on behalf of the respondents.
