Safia Sultana vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.

bdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3151 OF 2026
Safia Sultana ]
Aged 21 years, C/o. the Chambers ]
of Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, ]
th
at 4 Floor, Hind Rajasthan ]
Chambers, 6 Oak Lane, Fort, ]
Mumbai – 400 001 ] …. Petitioner.
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra, ]
Home Department ]
Through its Principal Secretary, ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 001 ]
]
2. Director General of Police, ]
Police Headquarters, Old Council ]
Hall, Shahid Bhagat Sigh Marg, ]
Mumbai – 400 001. ]
]
3. Commissioner of Police, Mumbai,]
Office of the Commissioner of Police,]
Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus Area, ]
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. ]
]
4. Senior Police Inspector, ]
Tolicowki Police Station, ]
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500008. ] … Respondents.
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Devyani Kulkarni,
Ms. Rishika Agarwal, Ms. Sanskruti Yagnik, Advocates for the
Petitioner.
Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, Additional. P.P. for the Respondents/State.
Ms. Swati Sinha, Advocate for the parents of the Petitioner.
1/8
901 CRWP-3151-2026.odt

Ms. Saleha Sultana, mother of the Petitioner, present in Court.
Mr. Mohammed Anwar, father of the Petitioner, present in Court.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
nd
DATE : 2 JULY 2026
JUDGMENT: (PER GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the matter is
heard with the consent of the parties.
2. This is an unusual case, where the Petitioner, who is 21 years
old has filed this Petition seeking the following reliefs:
‘a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other Writ/Order or Direction in the
nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 4
to not coerce the Petitioner to return to her parental home
against her express wishes;
b. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other writ/order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 4
to provide protection to the Petitioner against any threats,
harassment and harm from her family or any other
person acting on their behalf;
c. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other Writ/Order or Direction in the
nature of Mandamus restraining the Respondent No.4
from investigating and taking any coercive action in
2/8
901 CRWP-3151-2026.odt

furtherance of any Missing Person Report purportedly
filed in relation to the Petitioner.’
th
3. The Petitioner has completed her education up to 12
Standard in an English medium school. She was residing with her
parents at Hyderabad, Telangana. According to the Petitioner, she
th
voluntarily left her parental home on 15 June 2026 as she was unwilling
to marry her cousin, who is approximately ten years older than her. She
asserts that she aspires to pursue higher education and attain financial
independence, but her parents were unwilling to permit her to do so. It is
her case that she belongs to an extremely conservative and orthodox
family, where she had little freedom to express her views and was
subjected to emotional trauma. Following her departure from parental
home, her parents lodged a missing person complaint with the
Hyderabad Police. Apprehending that she may be compelled to marry
against her wishes and alleging threats from her family members, the
Petitioner has instituted the present Petition.
st
4. The matter was thereafter heard at length on 1 July 2026,
when this Court passed the following order:
‘1. The parents of the Petitioner have appeared before
us through a Counsel.
2. After hearing the Petitioner’s narration in the
3/8
901 CRWP-3151-2026.odt

Petition, the Counsel informs us that the father of the
Petitioner is paralyzed. He is present in the Court.
The mother of the Petitioner is willing to tender a
personal affidavit that the Petitioner, who is 21 years
of age, will not be compelled to get married against
her desire, much less, with a person who is twice her
age, as is her grievance. She would also state in the
affidavit that the further education desired by the
Petitioner would not be obstructed and there would
be no impediment created in her desire to study
further.
3. Let this affidavit be tendered to the Court tomorrow.
4. At the request of the learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioner and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, as well as the mother, this matter would
be heard in our Chambers at 1.30 p.m. tomorrow, i.e.
nd
2 July, 2026 .
5. We make it clear that since the Petitioner, as per the
learned Senior Advocate, would be travelling on her
own and would be coming to the Court Hall
tomorrow, the parents, or any of her relatives or the
Telangana/Hyderabad Police, would not intercept
her and there shall be no contact with her until the
hearing in our Chambers.’
5. Although the Petitioner's parents are not arrayed as
Respondents, we permitted them to participate in the proceedings
through their learned Advocate, having regard to the nature of the
controversy.
st
6. Pursuant to the order dated 1 July 2026, the Petitioner
appeared before us in Chambers. We interacted with her at considerable
4/8
901 CRWP-3151-2026.odt

length in the absence of her parents so as to ascertain the circumstances
in which she had left the parental home. Throughout the interaction, she
answered every query with clarity and confidence. She reiterated that she
had voluntarily left her residence as she was unwilling to marry against
her wishes and desired to pursue higher education. She further stated that
her parents were unwilling to permit her to pursue studies abroad, unless
she accepted the proposed marriage. She informed us that she is
presently self-employed by reviewing books and online content on
various social media platforms. We found her to be mature, articulate
and fully conscious of the consequences of the decisions that she has
taken. She is currently working at an NGO and staying as a paying guest
in Mumbai. Nothing emerged during our interaction to suggest that she
was acting under any coercion, influence or inducement.
7. The Petitioner clarified that apart from her apprehension of
being compelled to marry against her wishes and being prevented from
pursuing her education, she has no grievance against her adoptive
parents and with whom she has been since the age of 2 months.
However, she expressed a genuine apprehension that certain members of
her biological family and community may attempt to compel her to
return to Hyderabad or otherwise cause harm.
5/8
901 CRWP-3151-2026.odt

8. We thereafter interacted separately with the Petitioner's
adoptive parents, who were represented by learned counsel and were also
personally present before the Court, in chambers. The Petitioner's mother
nd
tendered an affidavit dated 2 July 2026, which is taken on record and
marked "X" for identification. By the said affidavit, she unequivocally
undertook that the Petitioner would neither be compelled nor coerced
into marrying against her wishes and that no obstruction would be
caused to her pursuing higher education. She further assured the Court
that the Petitioner's physical, emotional and mental well-being would be
protected if she chose to return to the parental home. These assurances
were reiterated by both parents during the course of the hearing.
9. After hearing the Petitioner and her parents separately, we
afforded them an opportunity to interact with each other. Accordingly,
the matter was kept back for some time. Despite the earnest requests and
assurances extended by her parents, the Petitioner unequivocally
reiterated that she was not willing to return to her parental home at
present. At the same time, she has assured her parents that she would
remain in regular communication with them and that they need not have
any concern regarding her safety and well-being and should not track
her.
6/8
901 CRWP-3151-2026.odt

10. Having interacted extensively with the Petitioner as well as
her parents and having considered the pleadings, we are satisfied that the
Petitioner has voluntarily left her parental home and is acting out of her
own free will. She is an adult, being 21 years of age and is legally
competent to decide where she wishes to reside, whether she wishes to
marry and whether she desires to pursue higher education. These are
matters of personal choice and a part of rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Neither her parents nor the State can compel her to
return to her parental home against her wishes. The assurances stated in
nd
the affidavit dated 2 July 2026 tendered by the Petitioner's parents are
accepted. Nevertheless, such assurances cannot override the Petitioner's
choices, which she has repeatedly affirmed before this Court.
11. In these circumstances, there is no justification for treating
the Petitioner as a missing person or for continuing any coercive process
intended to secure her return to Hyderabad. Since we have personally
interacted with the Petitioner and are satisfied that she is acting
voluntarily, the Telangana Police shall take appropriate steps to close the
missing person report lodged by the Petitioner's parents in accordance
with law. The Petitioner shall not be compelled, directly or indirectly, to
return to her parental home or be subjected to any pressure under the
threat of criminal proceedings or otherwise.
7/8
901 CRWP-3151-2026.odt

12. Accordingly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a) . Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
SUNNY
ANKUSHRAO
THOTE
Digitally signed by
SUNNY ANKUSHRAO
THOTE
Date: 2026.07.07
12:41:34 +0530
8/8
901 CRWP-3151-2026.odt