Nagpur: Allowing a petition filed by a 25-year-old man from Bhandara, Nagpur bench of Bombay high court recently directed superintendent of Govt Priyadarshini Women’s Hostel here to hand over custody of his 18-year-old wife to him after observing she has attained adulthood and willingly wants to stay with the petitioner.A division bench comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta ruled that her continued custody away from him could not be sustained in a habeas corpus proceeding. The man had alleged his wife was illegally detained after being placed in the hostel.The case arose from an FIR lodged by the woman’s father after she went missing from home in January 2025, when she was about 17 years and one month old. During investigation, she was traced with the petitioner and later brought back. The woman told police that she had voluntarily accompanied the petitioner and they married at a temple in Karnataka.The petitioner, through counsel Shashank Kulkarni, relied on the marriage certificate and contended that after the woman attained the age of majority, she was wrongfully confined and kept in the hostel from May 5, 2026.The state and the woman’s family opposed the plea, arguing the woman was a minor when she left home and that an FIR against the petitioner was under investigation. They urged the court to reject the petition, contending that the welfare of the child remained paramount.Recording the woman’s statement, judges noted that she “specifically stated that she wants to stay along with the petitioner” and that she had accompanied him out of “love and affection.” They also recorded that she had now attained the age of majority.The bench also held that while courts must exercise caution in habeas corpus matters involving minors, but, the wishes of an adult woman become the decisive consideration too.The court also clarified that a habeas corpus petition is intended to secure liberty by ensuring immediate release from illegal detention. “We have no hesitation to hold that the woman’s custody with the respondents is illegal in nature.”The petitioner was permitted by the court to seek police assistance, if required, for implementation of the order.
