Smt Shivani Tripathi vs State Of U.P. & 6 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:104390
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A major woman of sound mind and full legal capacity cannot be held in custody against her express wishes by her parents or family members, regardless of their disapproval of her choice of life partner or marriage; her right to personal liberty and self-determination in matters of residence and marriage is absolute and enforceable through habeas corpus.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos.5 to 7, which is taken on record.
2. By order dated 28.04.2026, the State was directed to produce the corpus, Smt. Shivani Tripathi before this Court and in compliance of that order, she has been produced before this Court by S.I. Manish Kumar Rai, PNO No.192037701 and lady Constable Reetu Kumari, PNO No. 252031614.
3. This Court interacted with Smt. Shivani Tripathi, who disclosed that she is 28 years of age and is pursuing M.A. and B.Ed. degrees, and has qualified the UGC- NET. She intends to solemnize marriage with petitioner Indrajeet, and wants to reside with him. She flatly refused to reside with her father, Vinod Kumar Tripathi, who is also present in the Court. The father of the corpus is disappointed because the corpus intends to solemnize marriage against his wishes. The petitioner Indrajeet is also present in the Court, who also disclosed that he is a lecturer in Geography in private degree college, who is intending to solemnize marriage with the corpus, Smt. Shivani Tripathi.
4. It is apparent that the corpus is a major woman, who is entitled to take her decision of life and since she has chosen to reside with the petitioner Indrajeet, and also to solemnize marriage with him, hence, her custody cannot be given to private respondents.
5. In view of the above facts, instant habeas corpus writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the corpus may proceed as per her liberty and may reside as per her wishes with the person of her choice. The corpus also disclosed that certain items, including her educational notebooks and other essential belongings, have not been handed over by the private respondents.
6. The concerned SHO, Police Station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj, is directed to ensure that the aforesaid items belonging to the corpus are handed over by the private respondents to the corpus.
7. The corpus has also expressed her apprehension that, as she has acted against the wishes of her parents and family members, some untoward incident may happen to her.
8. In view of the above statement of the corpus, the State and the S.H.O. of Police Station Mukherji Nagar, Delhi are directed to ensure the safety of the corpus along with the petitioner Indrajeet.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
May 6, 2026
Mini
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free