MP High Court: Protects Adult Choice Spouse Travel, Bars Forced Ghazipur Trip

• The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that an adult woman cannot be compelled to travel to Ghazipur for a police statement if it can be recorded in Bhopal.
• Justice Himanshu Joshi's order emphasized the petitioner's fundamental right to choose her spouse under Article 21, citing Supreme Court precedents like the Lata Singh judgment.
• The court directed police in Bhopal and Ghazipur to take preventive measures to ensure the couple's safety, acknowledging the woman's fear of harm.
• While protecting personal liberty, the ruling also clarified that an adult's choice does not grant immunity from lawful police investigations.
• The petitioner, born June 5, 2008, stated she would turn 18 on June 5, 2026, but her status as a major was undisputed by respondents.

This Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling serves as a significant reinforcement of an adult's fundamental right to choose a spouse, a core aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently addressed a petition filed by a young woman seeking judicial protection after her marriage, which was solemnized against her parents' wishes. The petitioner, whose date of birth is June 5, 2008, stated that she would attain the age of 18 on June 5, 2026. She had voluntarily married, securing a marriage certificate from the Marriage Officer in Bhopal, a decision that led to significant opposition from her family.

According to her account, her family was allegedly using local police to compel her and her husband to travel to Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, for the purpose of recording a statement. The woman expressed grave fears for her life and her husband's safety, believing they could face physical harm or even death if forced to go. These apprehensions heightened after police, on August 14, 2026, presented her with a notice from Respondent No. 2, demanding her appearance for a statement, which she successfully avoided. Separately, her husband had already taken steps to seek protection and had lodged a complaint at the Ratibad Police Station in Bhopal.

During the court proceedings, Advocate Manoj Chaturvedi, representing the petitioner, asserted his client's fundamental right to choose her spouse and determine her own life, emphasizing that her status as a major was not disputed by the respondents. He highlighted the voluntary nature of her marriage and argued that there was no valid reason to compel her travel to Ghazipur when her statement could be readily recorded in Bhopal or through online means. This argument foregrounded the MP High Court adult choice spouse travel principle.

Government Advocate Dinesh Prasad Patel, while clarifying he did not represent Respondent No. 2, informed the court that the police's intention was solely to record her statement as part of an ongoing inquiry, without any malicious intent. He suggested that while a blanket bar on the investigation was not feasible, the court could direct appropriate safeguards. Justice Himanshu Joshi, presiding over the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling, acknowledged these submissions. The court reiterated that an adult choice of spouse India is protected, drawing upon landmark Supreme Court judgments such as the Lata Singh judgment, Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., and Laxmibai Chandaragi B. v. State of Karnataka. These precedents firmly establish that the selection of a life partner falls within the ambit of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and that neither family nor the State can override this individual autonomy.

In a balanced decision that upheld both investigative necessity and individual rights, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued clear directives. The court explicitly instructed Respondent No. 2 not to compel the petitioner to travel to Ghazipur solely for recording her statement, particularly if the same could be lawfully recorded in Bhopal. This directly addressed the Ghazipur police statement travel concern. However, the court also clarified that an adult's decision to marry by choice does not grant immunity from a legitimate police inquiry or a blanket exemption from lawful investigation. Any such inquiry, it stressed, must be conducted strictly in accordance with the law and without infringing upon the petitioner's fundamental right to life, liberty, and dignity.

The ruling further mandated that the petitioner must cooperate with the ongoing investigation and appear before the police at a mutually agreed-upon time and location. Should her physical presence in Ghazipur be genuinely indispensable for a specific investigative purpose, the authorities retain the right to proceed lawfully, provided no coercion, intimidation, or unlawful restraint is employed against her. Furthermore, in response to her expressed fears of threat to life, the court ordered the Superintendents of Police in both Bhopal and Ghazipur to implement appropriate preventive measures upon receiving the court order and the petitioner's representation, ensuring that no individual takes the law into their own hands.

This Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling serves as a significant reinforcement of an adult's fundamental right to choose a spouse, a core aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It firmly establishes that while police investigations must proceed, they cannot infringe upon these constitutional rights, especially when alternative, less restrictive means of inquiry are available. The judgment provides a crucial precedent against arbitrary demands for out-of-jurisdiction travel for statements, particularly when a petitioner expresses credible fears for their safety.

By directing police to record statements locally if feasible and to provide protective measures, the court has underscored the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual autonomy against potential misuse of authority or family pressure. This decision, echoing the principles laid down in the Lata Singh judgment and other Supreme Court pronouncements, strengthens the legal framework protecting individuals who exercise their adult choice of spouse India, ensuring that their personal liberty is upheld even in the face of familial opposition or investigative demands.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note this ruling as a strong precedent reinforcing an adult's fundamental right to choose a spouse under Article 21, even against family opposition. It provides grounds to challenge police demands for out-of-jurisdiction travel for statements when local recording is feasible and client safety is at risk, ensuring investigations proceed without infringing on personal liberty.

Source: Original reporting via legal news sources