01Facts
The Petitioner, a 21-year-old woman residing in Hyderabad, voluntarily left her parental home on June 15, 2026, to escape a forced marriage with a cousin ten years her senior and to pursue higher education
¶ 3Her parents subsequently lodged a missing person complaint with the Tolicowki Police Station, Hyderabad
¶ 3The Petitioner, currently residing in Mumbai and working for an NGO, filed this writ petition seeking protection from family harassment and a stay on any coercive police action regarding the missing person report
¶ 2-3, 6During the proceedings, the Court conducted separate chamber interviews with the Petitioner and her adoptive parents
¶ 6, 8The mother filed an affidavit undertaking not to coerce the Petitioner into marriage or obstruct her education
¶ 8Despite these assurances, the Petitioner unequivocally refused to return home
¶ 902Issues
i.1. Whether an adult woman can be compelled by her parents or the State to return to her parental home against her express wishes
¶ 10ii.2. Whether the police should continue investigating a missing person report when the subject is an adult who has declared her safety and voluntary departure
¶ 1103Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty
¶ 10This includes the fundamental right of an adult to exercise personal choice regarding their place of residence, the decision to marry (or not marry), and the pursuit of education
¶ 10The Court also relied on the principle of legal competence, noting that a person who has attained the age of majority (18 years) is legally empowered to make autonomous life decisions without interference from the State or family
¶ 1004Reasoning
The Court analyzed the Petitioner’s maturity and found her to be "articulate and fully conscious of the consequences of her decisions" following a lengthy interaction
¶ 6Since the Petitioner is 21 years old, the Court held that her right to self-determination under Article 21 overrides parental authority and the State’s interest in "restoring" her to her family
¶ 10The Court reasoned that because the Petitioner’s departure was voluntary and free from coercion or inducement, there was no legal basis for the State to treat her as a "missing person" or for the police to exercise any coercive power to secure her return to Hyderabad
¶ 10-11Even though the parents provided an affidavit of safety, the Court emphasized that such assurances cannot supersede the choices of a legally competent adult
¶ 1005Holding
The Court allowed the petition, answering that an adult's personal choices are protected under the Constitution and cannot be overridden by family or state coercion
¶ 10The Court issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the Telangana Police to take steps to close the missing person report
¶ 11It further ordered that the Petitioner shall not be compelled to return home or be subjected to any pressure under the threat of criminal or coercive proceedings
¶ 11Rule was made absolute in terms of the prayer for protection against coercion
¶ 12Original Court PDF
Safia SultanavsState Of Maharashtra And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
