Neither Court Nor Her Family Can Override An Adult Woman's Choice To Live Life As She Desires: Kerala HC

The Court also observed that no restriction can be imposed regarding the place where she should stay.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition seeking directions to authorities to produce the detenu, a victim in POCSO crime, who is illegally detained at the behest of the respondents.

The bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P M Manoj observed, “…As the petitioner, who is an adult, has expressed her desire to live her life in the manner she chooses, no fetters can be placed on the same. No restriction can also be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the family members of Ms.X cannot substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter.”

Advocate A. Parvathi Menon appeared for the Appellant and Government Pleader P M Shameer appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The petitioner claims that his daughter, Ms. X, was sexually assaulted by the respondent Shibila under the POCSO Act. After the crime's registration, Ms X was placed under Child Welfare Committee care. The petitioner alleges that the respondent reestablished contact with Ms. X which prompted a bail cancellation request. Ms. X left home, returned displaying hostility, and later left her hostel to stay with the respondent Rejina. The petitioner claims that respondents are illegally detaining his daughter and has filed multiple complaints.

The Court interacted with the detenu who said that she is residing with the respondent of her own free will and was subjected to mental as well as physical abuse at her residence and that she, being an adult, has taken a conscious decision to live life on her terms.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas and quoted, “It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual's life has its significance. She/he is entitled to make her/his choice. The Courts cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the Court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation.”

According to the Court in the Habeas Corpus petition when the plea before the Court is that a person should be protected against persons with whom she is moving, of her own free will by making personal life choices, the Court has to recognize the right of ‘choice’ of the alleged detenu and respect her right to life and liberty.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: XXX vs. DGP (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:37416)

Appearance:

Appellant: Adv. A. Parvathi Menon, Adv. P. Sanjay, Adv. Biju Meenattoor, Adv. Indira K.P., Adv. Paul Varghese, Adv. Kiran Narayanan, Adv. Rahul Raj P, Adv. Muhammed Bilal V.A, Adv. Meera R. Menon, Adv. Basila Beegaam and Adv. Devika S. Prasad

Respondent: GP P M Shameer and Adv. Revathy k. Kappil

Click here to read/download Judgment