01Facts
The petitioner, Maheshwar Behra, filed a writ of Habeas Corpus seeking the release of his wife, Yukti Patel (Respondent No. 9), from Nari Niketan/Sakhi Centre in Raipur
p. 2The corpus, a 22-year-old adult, married the petitioner on November 24, 2025, against her family’s wishes
p. 4She alleged that her parents subsequently coerced her into an abortion, harassed her, and confined her in Raipur
p. 4Following a distress call, she was rescued by the police and placed in a protective shelter (Nari Niketan, later shifted to Sakhi Centre)
p. 4, 6The petitioner contended she was being held against her will despite no FIR being registered against him
p. 5The State maintained her stay was a "protective welfare measure" rather than a judicial detention
p. 602Issues
i.1. Whether the continued stay of an adult woman in a protective shelter home, without a judicial order or her consent, constitutes illegal detention
¶ 9-10ii.2. Whether the corpus, being a major, is entitled to exercise her fundamental right to personal liberty and choose her place of residence
¶ 9-1103Law Applied
The court primarily applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to safeguard personal liberty
p. 2It relied on the fundamental principle of autonomy of a major (adult), establishing that an adult individual has the legal capacity to make independent decisions regarding marriage, residence, and companionship
¶ 9The court further applied the principle that any restriction on movement by the State must be supported by a specific judicial order or lawful process to avoid being classified as "unlawful restraint" under the law
¶ 1004Reasoning
The Court observed that Yukti Patel is a major (22 years old) and possessed the legal competence to decide her own life choices
¶ 9The Court scrutinized the State's justification for her stay at the Sakhi Centre and found that there was no judicial or detention order authorizing her confinement
¶ 6, 10Since no FIR or criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner, there was no legal basis to restrict the lady’s movement or separate her from her husband
¶ 5, 9The Court logic was that while the State’s initial intervention may have been a bona fide welfare measure, "protection" cannot morph into "detention" against the will of a competent adult
¶ 10Consequently, her stay in the shelter home, in the absence of a legal mandate, was deemed a violation of her fundamental rights to dignity and autonomy
¶ 1005Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and held that the liberty of an adult cannot be curtailed against her free will without legal authority
¶ 10, 11The Court directed that Respondent No. 9 be set at liberty forthwith and permitted to reside as per her own choice
¶ 11The State counsel was ordered to communicate the release order to the Sakhi Centre (One Stop Centre), Raipur, immediately to ensure compliance without delay
¶ 11Original Court PDF
MAHESHWAR BEHRAvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
