SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir Ladakh High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking to trace his missing daughter, holding that an adult woman cannot be compelled to live with her parents after voluntarily choosing to reside with her husband.
Justice Sanjay Dhar passed the order on October 8, after interacting with the woman in person and recording her statement on oath before the court’s Registrar Judicial.
The petitioner, Bashir Ahmed, had approached the court seeking directions to the authorities to trace and recover his 20-year-old daughter, who went missing on July 11, 2026, after leaving home to appear in her Higher Secondary School Part-I annual examination.
According to the petition, the woman did not return home, prompting her family to search for her. Her father lodged a missing report at the concerned police station on July 12, alleging that despite repeated visits, no effective steps had been taken to trace her.
The father had also sought the constitution of a dedicated team to conduct a time-bound investigation, expressing apprehension that his daughter might have been abducted or illegally detained.
However, the woman, after being impleaded as a respondent in the case, informed the court that she had left her parental home voluntarily to marry a person of her choice. She maintained that her decision was neither influenced by anyone nor the result of coercion and opposed handing over her custody to her father.
During the proceedings, she told the court that she had married Mohd Abdullah of her own free will and was living with him independently in Kishtwar. She also stated that the couple had earlier approached the High Court through a separate writ petition, WP(C) No. 2275/2026, seeking protection against alleged harassment, following which the court issued directions in their favour.
The woman reiterated that she did not wish to live with her parents and wanted to continue residing with her husband.
In its order, the court observed that an adult’s voluntary and unequivocal decision to live with a person of their choice carries legal recognition. It said a major person could not be compelled to reside with or accompany anyone, including a parent, against their wishes.
The court further held that habeas corpus proceedings are intended to secure the release of a person from unlawful detention and cannot be used to force an adult to live with someone against their will.
Finding no material to indicate that the woman was being unlawfully detained, the court concluded that the case did not warrant the issuance of a habeas corpus writ.
“Thus, it is not a case of illegal or unlawful detention,” the court observed while dismissing the petition.
Justice Dhar clarified that the woman, being a major, was at liberty to accompany the person of her choice.
