Introduction
The Delhi High Court permitted a 100% visually impaired adult woman to reside with her partner of choice. The Court reaffirmed that an adult has the fundamental right to decide where and with whom to live, regardless of parental objections.
Case Title
Ram Kripal v. State
Legal Issue
The issue was whether an adult woman can be restrained by her parents from living with a partner of her choice, and whether such restraint violates her personal liberty.
Case Background
The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman’s partner. He alleged that she was being confined by her parents against her will.
Pursuant to the Court’s direction, the woman appeared before the Bench. The Court interacted with her, her father, and the petitioner. During the interaction, the woman clearly stated that she wished to live with the petitioner and intended to marry him.
Her father opposed the relationship and stated that he would sever ties if she chose to leave with the petitioner.
Court’s Ruling
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed the petition.
The Court held that since the woman is a major, she has full freedom to decide her residence. It emphasized that parental objection cannot override an adult’s autonomy.
Directions
The Court permitted the woman to leave with her partner. Considering safety concerns, it directed the State to provide police escort to the couple to their place of residence. It also instructed a Beat Constable to share contact details with them to ensure assistance in case of emergencies.
Final Outcome
The petition was allowed, and the woman was permitted to reside with her partner as per her own choice.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that personal liberty and autonomy are fundamental rights. It confirms that adults have the right to choose their partner and place of residence without interference.
The ruling also highlights the role of courts in protecting individuals from unlawful confinement, even within family settings.
Conclusion
The decision underscores that individual choice and dignity prevail over societal or parental pressure. It strengthens legal protection for adults exercising their right to live independently.
