The Court said that it was clear that the petitioner’s daughter was a major and had married a person of different faith by choice.
The Gujarat High Court recently dismissed a habeas corpus plea filed by a woman seeking custody of her adult daughter who was allegedly compelled to marry a man of a different faith.
A Bench of Justices Umesh A Trivedi and MK Thakker said that it was clear that the petitioner’s daughter was a major and had married a person of a different faith by choice.
“It is clear that daughter of the petitioner is major and she has entered into a marriage with a person of different faith. All the documents produced by the petitioner herself is clear to establish that she is major and entered into a marriage, of course with a person of her choice and not the choice of the parents,” the order stated.
According to the petitioner, her daughter went missing on April 5 this year, after which a complaint was registered on April 7.
She claimed that her daughter had sent her an envelope containing both the conversion certificate of her husband, who had converted from Islam to Hinduism, as well as their marriage certificate. The envelope also contained a notice of intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act.
The woman further stated that the couple had sent a letter to the Station House Officer (SHO) of her locality as well, requesting the police not to pursue any complaint that the petitioner or her husband may file against the couple.
The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner did not disclose the source of the envelope and observed that the postal stamp on it was illegible.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that there was no indication whatsoever to suggest that the petitioner’s daughter was being coerced or forced into the marriage against her will.
It also noted that the couple had earlier jointly requested police protection, citing threats from the petitioner. The High Court itself granted them police protection on May 10.
Upon reviewing the case and the documents on record, the Court stated that it could not draw the conclusion that the petitioner’s daughter had been abducted against her will or that she was being unlawfully confined.
Thus, the Court refused to entertain the habeas corpus plea.
