The Bombay High Court recently permitted a Hindu girl to continue her live-in relationship with a Muslim boy, affirming her “right to choice” as an adult and emphasizing that “love recognizes no barriers.” The Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, in their order dated December 13, underscored the fundamental right to individual liberty while quoting American civil rights activist Maya Angelou: “Love recognizes no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its destination full of hope.”

The Court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner, Naushad Mehboob Jamadar, a 20-year-old boy, seeking the release of the girl from Shaskriya Stree Bhishekari Khikar Kendra, a government women’s center in Mumbai. The girl’s family had opposed the inter-religious relationship and, along with right-wing factions, sought to restrain her from joining the petitioner. However, the Court noted that the girl unequivocally expressed her desire to live with the petitioner in a live-in relationship, as she was an adult capable of making her own decisions.

The judges observed that although the petitioner was not of marriageable age (21 years for men under Indian law), the girl insisted on residing with him in a live-in relationship until he attains the requisite age. The Court clarified that such a relationship cannot automatically be equated with a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. “Necessarily, all live-in relationships will not amount to ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ as contemplated under the Act,” the Bench stated, referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment in D Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal.

In interacting with the girl, the Court found her determination clear and uncoerced. She expressed: “I want to lead my life as a free person, who is not physically restricted or controlled by others and is able to make my own choice and decision.” The judges recognized that societal disapproval or familial opposition cannot curtail her constitutionally protected freedom. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M., the Bench reiterated that “expression of choice is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court further remarked: “The Court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father.” While acknowledging the parents' concerns about their daughter’s future, the judges emphasized that such concerns cannot override her right to choose her partner or way of life.

The Court ultimately ordered the immediate release of the girl from the government center, declaring that she is “entitled to live her life according to her own choice.” However, the Bench declined the petitioner’s plea for police protection, finding no sufficient grounds to warrant such a measure.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Zade, Mr. Asif Latif Shaikh, Mr. Abid Abbas Sayyed, and Mr. P.S. Bankar
Counsel for the Parents: Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Ms. Anjali Joshi, and Mr. Rajesh Shirke
Counsel for the State: Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. D.J. Haldankar

Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) 24433 of 2024
Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande