Mumbai: The Bombay High Court, sitting as a Vacation Court, has held that an adult woman is at “complete liberty to exercise her choice” and to choose her life partner without force or pressure, while disposing of an urgent petition filed by a 21-year-old Hindu woman who had married a Muslim man of the same age and apprehended action by her parents.
A Division Bench of Justice Advait M. Sethna and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale passed the order on 9 November 2026 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 6138 of 2026, saying that the police must act strictly in accordance with law.
The petition was moved before the Vacation Court on the ground of extreme urgency, by a praecipe filed on 7 November 2026. The petitioner, who is identified in the order only by initials, said that she is an adult aged 21 years, married to a man aged 21, and that they had been in a long relationship for 4 to 5 years known to the parents on both sides.
According to the petition, the couple married on 19 October 2026 and then went to the police station to inform it of the marriage and to seek protection, as the petitioner feared that her parents would act against her. The police station, it was alleged, refused to take any steps. It was also alleged that her parents forcibly took her to Uttar Pradesh, and that she returned to Mumbai and sought police protection to live in her matrimonial home. On 4 November 2026, the Regular Court gave her liberty to move the Vacation Court.
Asked about her age, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, stated on instructions that she is 21 and therefore an adult capable of taking a conscious decision and making an informed choice. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368, which held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is an integral part of Article 21, and that a person has complete freedom to choose a life partner of any faith, belief, religion or caste.
The Bench said that this legal position is not disputed and that it was in complete agreement with the decision. It held that the petitioner, being a major and an adult, is at complete liberty to exercise her choice and to choose her life partner and take an appropriate decision without any force or being influenced by any pressure.
Counsel expressed certain apprehension about the conduct of the police authorities, but the Court said that it did not deem it appropriate at this stage to make any observations on that. It added that it need not be said that the police authorities will act within the four corners of the law and strictly in accordance with law.
With the consent of the petitioner’s counsel, the Court disposed of the petition. The order does not issue any specific direction to the police, and does not record any finding on the petitioner’s allegations against her parents or on the police station’s alleged refusal to act.
Appearances: For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Mr. Jagdish Kawale and Mr. Siddhant S., Advocates. For the State: Mr. Shreekant Gawand, Additional Public Prosecutor. The petitioner was present in person.
Case Title: Z. S. v. State of Maharashtra and Others, Criminal Writ Petition No. 6138 of 2026
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
