CHANDIGARH: Courts’ role is not to enforce social norms or morality but to uphold principles of constitutional morality, Punjab and Haryana high court has held, dismissing a habeas corpus petition by a person seeking directions that his 30-year-old daughter stay with him.
HC emphasised that an adult woman, like any other citizen, possesses the right to be treated as an independent and autonomous individual, free from coercion and undue influence.The bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said the notion that a woman’s father, or anyone else, can impose their will on her based on a perceived social role is a direct affront to the right to equality and personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution. The woman had said she did not wish to return to her father due to physical harassment by her brothers, who have been pressuring her to return to her abusive husband, from whom she has separated.
“If a fully mature adult, capable of making her own decisions, has clearly expressed her desire to live independently, the court cannot override her will. It cannot, and should not, compel an adult to return to the custody of another, even if that person is a well-meaning parent,” Justice Kaul said.
In her statement before the magistrate – recorded on the HC’s directives – the woman said she was residing separately of her own free will. The lower court confirmed this, saying there was no external influence on her decision.Justice Kaul observed that the argument about a father being a better custodian of an adult woman than herself was not only antiquated but also ran contrary to the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
“The identity and autonomy of an adult woman are not defined by her relationships or familial obligations. The Constitution safeguards her right to live freely and make her own choices, without external interference,” Justice Kaul said.
HC emphasised that an adult woman, like any other citizen, possesses the right to be treated as an independent and autonomous individual, free from coercion and undue influence.The bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said the notion that a woman’s father, or anyone else, can impose their will on her based on a perceived social role is a direct affront to the right to equality and personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution. The woman had said she did not wish to return to her father due to physical harassment by her brothers, who have been pressuring her to return to her abusive husband, from whom she has separated.
“If a fully mature adult, capable of making her own decisions, has clearly expressed her desire to live independently, the court cannot override her will. It cannot, and should not, compel an adult to return to the custody of another, even if that person is a well-meaning parent,” Justice Kaul said.
In her statement before the magistrate – recorded on the HC’s directives – the woman said she was residing separately of her own free will. The lower court confirmed this, saying there was no external influence on her decision.Justice Kaul observed that the argument about a father being a better custodian of an adult woman than herself was not only antiquated but also ran contrary to the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.
“The identity and autonomy of an adult woman are not defined by her relationships or familial obligations. The Constitution safeguards her right to live freely and make her own choices, without external interference,” Justice Kaul said.