An adult woman’s voluntary choice to accompany her husband must be respected in habeas proceedings.

The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226, alleging that his 21-year-old wife, Ankita, was being unlawfully confined by her parents, respondents 4 and 5.

He stated that they had married on 14 August 2026 and that, after discussions at the police station, Ankita had gone with her parents.

The police produced Ankita before the Court, which recorded her statement in an in-camera proceeding.

1. Whether Ankita was being unlawfully confined by respondents 4 and 5 so as to warrant habeas corpus relief

2. Whether Ankita, having attained majority, should be permitted to go with the petitioner in accordance with her expressed wish

The Court exercised its habeas corpus jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The order reflects the principle that, where an adult’s wishes are ascertained by the Court and she expresses a voluntary choice about whom to accompany, that choice should be respected.

The Court had Ankita produced and questioned her in camera. She stated that she was 21 years old, was the petitioner’s wife, and wished to accompany him and go to his house.

On the basis of her recorded wishes, the Court permitted her to return with the petitioner; it did not separately set out findings on the alleged circumstances of her confinement.

The writ petition was disposed of, with any pending applications also disposed of.