Bombay HC Quashes Missing Person Process Against 21-Year-Old Who Left Home to Escape Forced Marriage

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld a 21-year-old woman's right to reside independently, directing Telangana Police to close the missing person report filed by her parents after she left the family home to avoid a marriage she did not consent to.

The Bombay High Court, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3151 of 2026, allowed the petition of a 21-year-old woman who had voluntarily left her parental home in Hyderabad, Telangana on 15 June 2026 to avoid being compelled into marriage with a cousin approximately ten years her senior. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, with the judgment authored by Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, held that she was fully competent under Article 21 of the Constitution to decide where she wished to reside, whether she wished to marry, and whether she desired to pursue higher education. The Bench directed the Telangana Police to take appropriate steps to close the missing person report her parents had lodged and made clear that no coercive process could be used to compel her return to Hyderabad.

What the Petitioner Sought and Why She Filed in Bombay

The petitioner, aged 21, was residing in Mumbai at the time she approached the Bombay High Court. She sought three reliefs by way of writs of mandamus: a direction to State authorities not to coerce her into returning to her parental home against her wishes; police protection against threats or harassment from her family or anyone acting on their behalf; and a restraint on the Senior Police Inspector, Tolicowki Police Station, Hyderabad, from investigating or taking coercive action under the missing person report her parents had filed.

The respondents named in the petition were the State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Home Department; the Director General of Police, Maharashtra; the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai; and the Senior Police Inspector at Tolicowki Police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana.

According to the petitioner, she had completed her education up to 12th Standard and had been living with her adoptive parents in Hyderabad. She stated that her family was extremely conservative and orthodox, that she had little freedom to express her views, and that she had been subjected to emotional trauma. Her parents, she said, were unwilling to permit her to pursue higher education unless she accepted the proposed marriage. After she left the family home on 15 June 2026, her parents lodged a missing person complaint with the Hyderabad Police.

Proceedings: In-Chambers Interaction and the Parental Affidavit

The matter was heard at length on 1 July 2026. At that stage, the Bench was informed that the petitioner's father was paralysed and was personally present in court. The petitioner's mother indicated she was willing to tender a personal affidavit undertaking that the petitioner would not be compelled to marry against her wishes, and that her pursuit of higher education would not be obstructed.

By order dated 1 July 2026, the Bench directed that neither the parents, their relatives, nor the Telangana or Hyderabad Police would intercept the petitioner as she travelled independently to court the following day. The matter was then heard in chambers on 2 July 2026 at 1.30 p.m., at the request of Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Desai, who appeared with Ms. Devyani Kulkarni, Ms. Rishika Agarwal and Ms. Sanskruti Yagnik for the petitioner, and Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. M. M. Deshmukh for the State. The parents were represented by Ms. Swati Sinha and were personally present.

Although the parents were not arrayed as respondents, the Bench permitted them to participate in the proceedings given the nature of the controversy.

In chambers, the Bench first interacted with the petitioner separately, in the absence of her parents. The judgment records that she answered every query with clarity and confidence, reiterated that she had left voluntarily, and disclosed that she was presently self-employed by reviewing books and online content on social media platforms, was working at an NGO, and was staying as a paying guest in Mumbai. The Bench found her to be mature, articulate and fully conscious of the consequences of her decisions. Nothing in the interaction suggested she was acting under coercion, influence or inducement.

The petitioner also clarified to the Bench that apart from her apprehension of being compelled into marriage and being prevented from studying, she had no grievance against her adoptive parents, with whom she had been since she was two months old. Her concern extended to certain members of her biological family and community who, she feared, might attempt to compel her to return to Hyderabad.

The Bench then interacted separately with the adoptive parents. The petitioner's mother tendered an affidavit dated 2 July 2026, taken on record and marked “X” for identification. By that affidavit, she unequivocally undertook that the petitioner would not be compelled or coerced into marrying against her wishes, that no obstruction would be caused to her pursuing higher education, and that her physical, emotional and mental well-being would be protected if she chose to return home. Both parents reiterated these assurances during the hearing.

After these separate interactions, the Bench afforded the petitioner and her parents an opportunity to meet each other. Despite earnest requests and the assurances extended by them, the petitioner unequivocally reiterated that she was not willing to return to her parental home at that time. She assured her parents that she would remain in regular communication with them, that they need not have concern regarding her safety, and that they should not track her.

The Bench's Reasoning on Article 21 and Personal Autonomy

The Bench held, having interacted extensively with the petitioner and her parents and having considered the pleadings, that it was satisfied she had voluntarily left her parental home and was acting of her own free will. Being 21 years of age, she was legally competent to decide where she wished to reside, whether she wished to marry, and whether she desired to pursue higher education. The judgment described these as matters of personal choice and a part of rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench was explicit that neither her parents nor the State could compel her to return against her wishes. It accepted the assurances in the mother's affidavit of 2 July 2026, but held that those assurances could not override the petitioner's choices, which she had repeatedly affirmed before the court.

On the missing person report, the Bench found there was no justification for treating the petitioner as a missing person or for continuing any coercive process intended to secure her return to Hyderabad. The Bench noted that it had personally interacted with her and was satisfied she was acting voluntarily. The direction was accordingly issued to the Telangana Police to take appropriate steps to close the missing person report in accordance with law. The petitioner was also not to be compelled, directly or indirectly, to return to her parental home, or to be subjected to any pressure under the threat of criminal proceedings or otherwise.

Order

The Bombay High Court allowed the petition in terms of prayer clause (a) — the direction against coercing the petitioner to return to her parental home. Rule was made absolute in those terms. The Telangana Police was directed to close the missing person report lodged by the petitioner's parents in accordance with law. The court made clear that the petitioner could not be subjected to any pressure, direct or indirect, under the threat of criminal proceedings or otherwise.