Bombay HC: Adult woman free to choose life partner, police must act strictly per law

The Bombay High Court has said an adult woman is entirely free to choose her life partner, whatever her faith, belief, religion or caste. The court said she must be allowed to exercise this right without coercion or pressure. It made the observation while hearing a protection petition from a 21-year-old woman who married a man of another religion.

The order is dated November 9. The vacation bench comprised Justice Advait M. Sethna and Justice Ranjitsinh Raja Bhonsale. The bench said the right to marry a person of one's choice is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petition was filed by a 21-year-old Hindu woman. In October she married a 21-year-old Muslim man. The two had been in a relationship for four to five years. Soon after the wedding they went to Dharavi police station and sought protection, as the woman feared her parents would "wage war" against her.

According to the petition, Dharavi police refused to take any action. The woman's parents then allegedly took her to Uttar Pradesh against her will. She later returned to Mumbai and approached the High Court. She sought protection so that she could live in her marital home.

Noting that the woman is an adult, the court said she is capable of taking a considered decision and making her choice with full knowledge. The bench cited earlier Supreme Court orders holding that Article 21 gives complete freedom to choose a life partner. The High Court said, "This legal position is not disputed. We are in complete agreement with this view."

The court said, "The petitioner, being a major and an adult, is completely free to exercise her choice, choose her life partner and take an appropriate decision in this regard, without any coercion or the influence of any pressure."

The woman had also expressed fear about police action. The court said the police must act strictly in accordance with the law. The bench added that it did not consider it appropriate to comment further on the issue at this stage.