MP High Court Upholds Woman’s Right To Choose Partner, Allows Her To Live With Companion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Abdhesh v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-5164-2026] allowed a 19-year-old married woman to live with a partner of her choice, emphasising her right to personal liberty and autonomy.

The case arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman’s husband, who alleged that his wife was being illegally confined by another man. The Court, however, focused on the woman’s own statement and her expressed wishes.

When produced before the Bench, the woman clearly stated that she was not under any illegal detention. She firmly refused to return to her husband and expressed her desire to live with the man she had chosen.

She also informed the Court that her marital life had been difficult. According to her, she had been subjected to ill-treatment by her husband, which led to her decision to leave the matrimonial home.

The Bench, comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Pushpendra Yadav, carefully interacted with her to understand her position. It noted that she was an adult capable of making her own decisions regarding her life and relationships.

The Court further observed that even her parents wanted to take her back, but she refused to go with them as well. The order recorded that she did not consider them to be acting in her best interest.

In light of these facts, the Court held that there was no case of illegal confinement. Since the woman had voluntarily chosen to stay with her partner, the habeas corpus petition filed by the husband was found to be without merit.

While permitting her to live with her chosen partner, the Court also took steps to ensure her safety and well-being. It appointed two women officials as “Shourya Didis” for a period of six months.

These “Shourya Didis” will remain in regular contact with the woman and monitor her welfare. The concept refers to female mentors, often police personnel or officials from the Women and Child Development Department, who guide and support individuals in vulnerable situations.

The Court also recorded the statement of the man with whom the woman chose to reside. He assured the Bench that he shared a close emotional bond with her and intended to care for her responsibly. He also stated that he would not subject her to any form of harassment.

Based on the overall circumstances, the Court concluded that the woman’s choice deserved respect. It held that her autonomy could not be overridden by her husband or parents.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of, reaffirming the principle that an adult individual has the right to decide where and with whom to live.