The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an adult woman is legally entitled to live with a married man, and there exists no law that restricts her choice merely on the ground of the man’s marital status. The Court emphasized that questions of morality cannot override the fundamental right of an adult to choose her partner and place of residence.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal was hearing a habeas corpus petition, where the family of a young woman (Corpus ‘X’) had sought her custody after she eloped with a man who was already married. Upon being produced before the Court, the woman expressed her desire to live with the said man.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that since the man was already married, the woman should return to her parents. However, the State counsel, relying on instructions from the police, submitted that the man had already left his first wife and was in the process of obtaining a divorce.

Rejecting the petitioner’s contention, the Bench made it clear that the Court cannot dictate personal choices of adults:

“The undisputed fact is that the Corpus is an adult. She cannot be treated like a chattel. She has a right and a mind of her own and the right to make a decision, whether right or wrong, with regard to the person with whom she wants to live. As regards the person with whom she wants to live being married, there is no law that prevents her from living with the said person. If she gets married to him, the same being a non-cognizable offence, only the first wife can register a case against her husband and the woman for bigamy.”

The Court clarified the distinction between cohabitation and marriage with a married man. While merely living with a married man does not attract any penal consequences, entering into marriage would potentially give rise to an offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, but only the first wife can lodge such a complaint.

Recognizing the woman’s autonomy, the Court directed the police to release her after securing an undertaking from her that she would stay with the man of her choice, and also recording an endorsement from the man that he accepts her company.

Concluding the matter, the Court underscored that personal autonomy of adults must be respected:

“As this Court cannot pontificate on matters relating to morality, and once having observed that the Corpus has a right to stay with whom she wants to stay with, the police is requested to release her after taking the necessary undertaking and endorsement.”

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition was disposed of.

Case Title: N v. State of Madhya Pradesh
For Petitioner: Advocate Aayush Sharma
For Respondent: Deputy Advocate General Abhijeet Awasthi