Introduction:

In an important decision reaffirming the autonomy and personal liberty of adults in matters of marriage and choice of residence, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by parents seeking the custody of their daughter who had left home and married a man of her choice. The matter arose in a writ petition filed by Turlapati Peddabbai and another against the State of Andhra Pradesh and several respondents, including the man alleged to have taken their daughter away. The case was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy and Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela. The petitioners approached the High Court under the writ jurisdiction seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production of their daughter, who had been missing from their residence since January 2026. According to the parents, their daughter, who was studying in the second year of engineering at Vellore Institute of Technology Amaravati, had been taken away by Respondent No.7. They therefore requested the Court to direct the police authorities to trace and produce their daughter before the Court. However, when the alleged detenue was produced before the Court, she made it clear that she had voluntarily left her parental home because she was in love with Respondent No.7 and had willingly married him after attaining majority. She further stated that she had married him in a church in January 2026 and later underwent another marriage ceremony to obtain documentary proof of marriage. She also categorically informed the Court that she was residing with him of her own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion, illegal detention, or confinement. Taking note of her statement and the fact that she had attained majority, the High Court held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be invoked when a major person voluntarily chooses to reside with someone of her choice. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that the parents’ grievance could not override the constitutional freedom of an adult to make independent decisions regarding marriage and residence.

Arguments of the Petitioners (Parents):

The petitioners, who were the parents of the alleged corpus, approached the High Court with the claim that their daughter had been unlawfully taken away by Respondent No.7. According to them, their daughter had suddenly gone missing from their residence in January 2026. The parents asserted that they had reason to believe that Respondent No.7 had played a role in her disappearance and had possibly taken her away against their wishes. The petitioners therefore invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. They requested the Court to direct the police authorities to locate and produce their daughter so that it could be determined whether she was being illegally confined or detained by Respondent No.7. The parents also expressed concern regarding their daughter’s safety and welfare. They argued that as responsible parents they had every right to know the circumstances under which their daughter had left the house and whether she was being subjected to any form of pressure or manipulation. In addition to these concerns, the petitioners brought to the Court’s attention certain allegations regarding the conduct of Respondent No.7 prior to their daughter attaining majority. According to the parents, their daughter had been impregnated by Respondent No.7 in August 2025 when she was still a minor. They submitted medical records before the Court to support this claim and argued that such circumstances raised serious questions about the legality and propriety of Respondent No.7’s actions. The petitioners contended that this aspect of the matter should be taken into account by the Court while determining the legality of their daughter’s relationship with Respondent No.7. The parents therefore urged the Court to intervene and ensure that their daughter was returned to their custody. They argued that even if she had subsequently married Respondent No.7, the circumstances leading up to that marriage indicated that she had been influenced or exploited by him at a time when she was still a minor. According to them, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised to protect their daughter from possible exploitation and to safeguard her interests.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents, including Respondent No.7 and the State authorities, opposed the petition and argued that the writ petition was not maintainable in law. It was submitted that the alleged corpus had already attained the age of majority and was therefore legally competent to make decisions regarding her personal life, including whom she wished to marry and where she wished to reside. The respondents further argued that the essential purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to secure the release of a person who is unlawfully detained or confined. In the present case, however, there was no element of illegal detention or confinement. The respondents pointed out that the alleged corpus had voluntarily left her parental home and had chosen to live with Respondent No.7 after marrying him of her own free will. They emphasised that once a person attains majority, her decisions regarding marriage and residence are protected by law and cannot be overridden by parental objections. The respondents also argued that the allegations regarding the alleged pregnancy of the corpus during her minority could not be examined within the limited scope of a habeas corpus petition. According to them, if the parents believed that any offence had been committed in the past, they were free to pursue appropriate remedies under the relevant criminal laws. However, such allegations could not be used as a basis for seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus when the alleged detenue herself had expressed her desire to remain with her husband. The respondents therefore requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides and interacting with the alleged corpus in person, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered its judgment. The Court first examined the fundamental purpose of a writ of habeas corpus, which is a constitutional remedy designed to protect individuals from illegal detention or unlawful confinement. The Court noted that such a writ is issued only when a person is found to be detained without lawful authority or against his or her will. In the present case, however, the Court observed that the alleged corpus had been produced before the Court and had clearly stated that she had voluntarily left her parental home because she was in love with Respondent No.7. She further informed the Court that she had married him in January 2026 after attaining majority and that she had done so of her own free will. The corpus also made it clear that she was residing with him willingly and had not been subjected to any coercion, threat, or unlawful confinement. She further expressed her intention to continue living with her husband and clearly stated that she did not wish to return to her parents’ home. The Court observed that once a person attains the age of majority, she becomes legally competent to make independent decisions regarding her personal life. These decisions include the choice of a life partner and the place where she wishes to reside. The Court emphasised that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty protects the autonomy of adults to make such decisions without interference from others, including family members. The Bench therefore held that the parents could not compel their adult daughter to live with them against her will. The Court also addressed the allegations raised by the parents regarding the alleged pregnancy of the corpus during her minority. While noting the seriousness of such allegations, the Court clarified that the writ jurisdiction in a habeas corpus petition is limited to examining whether the person concerned is being illegally detained. Since the corpus had clearly stated that she was living with her husband voluntarily, the Court found no basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus. The Court therefore advised the parents that if they wished to pursue any legal action regarding the alleged events that took place before their daughter attained majority, they were free to avail themselves of the remedies provided under the law. However, such issues could not form the basis for granting relief in the present writ petition. Having considered all these aspects, the Court concluded that the corpus was a major who had voluntarily married Respondent No.7 and had chosen to live with him of her own free will. Since there was no element of illegal detention or confinement, the essential requirement for issuing a writ of habeas corpus was not satisfied. Consequently, the Court held that the petition was not maintainable and dismissed it.