Adult Corpus Cannot Be Detained in Protective Custody Against Her Will and Consent

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

The corpus, a 22-year-old adult, married the petitioner on November 24, 2025, against her family’s wishes

She alleged that her parents subsequently coerced her into an abortion, harassed her, and confined her in Raipur

Following a distress call, she was rescued by the police and placed in a protective shelter (Nari Niketan, later shifted to Sakhi Centre)

The petitioner contended she was being held against her will despite no FIR being registered against him

The State maintained her stay was a "protective welfare measure" rather than a judicial detention

1. Whether the continued stay of an adult woman in a protective shelter home, without a judicial order or her consent, constitutes illegal detention

2. Whether the corpus, being a major, is entitled to exercise her fundamental right to personal liberty and choose her place of residence

The court primarily applied Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to safeguard personal liberty

It 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

The 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

The Court observed that Yukti Patel is a major (22 years old) and possessed the legal competence to decide her own life choices

The 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

Since 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

The 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

Consequently, 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

The Court directed that Respondent No. 9 be set at liberty forthwith and permitted to reside as per her own choice

The State counsel was ordered to communicate the release order to the Sakhi Centre (One Stop Centre), Raipur, immediately to ensure compliance without delay