The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed police authorities not to compel an adult woman to travel from Bhopal to Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh, merely for recording her statement, after she expressed apprehension of danger to her life following her marriage against her family’s wishes.
Justice Himanshu Joshi passed the order on September 1, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 34456 of 2026.
The petitioner told the Court that she was born on June 5, 2008, and attained majority on June 5, 2026. She claimed to have married voluntarily and produced a marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Officer, Bhopal.
According to her petition, her family opposed the marriage and police personnel had served her a notice requiring her to appear for recording her statement. She apprehended that taking her to Ghazipur could expose her and her husband to physical harm. She therefore sought permission to have her statement recorded at Bhopal or through an online mode.
The State, however, submitted that the police were only seeking her statement as part of an inquiry and had no intention of harming either person. The State submitted that the petitioner could not seek a blanket direction restraining the police from conducting a lawful inquiry or recording her statement.
The High Court noted that the petitioner’s disclosed date of birth showed that she was an adult when the petition was filed, and her adult status was not shown to be disputed by the respondents.
Referring to Lata Singh v. State of U.P., Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., and Laxmibai Chandaragi B. v. State of Karnataka, the Court reiterated that an adult person is entitled to choose a life partner and that such individual autonomy is protected under the constitutional right to life and personal liberty. The Court also made clear that the petitioner’s adult status and her choice of spouse did not give her immunity from a lawful police inquiry. However, any investigation had to be conducted in accordance with law and without infringing her rights to life, liberty and dignity
The Court directed Respondent No. 2 not to compel the petitioner to travel to Ghazipur merely to record her statement if it could lawfully be recorded at Bhopal. She was directed to cooperate with the inquiry or investigation and appear before the competent police officer at a mutually fixed place and time.
If her presence at Ghazipur was found indispensable for a particular investigative purpose, the authorities could proceed according to law, but without coercion, intimidation or unlawful restraint. The Superintendents of Police at Bhopal and Ghazipur, as the case may be, were directed to take appropriate preventive measures upon receipt of the order and the petitioner’s representation.
The Court expressly declined to comment on the validity of the marriage or the merits of any police proceedings and disposed of the petition with these directions.
Case Details:
Case Title: VG v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 34456 of 2026
Judge: Justice Himanshu Joshi
Date: September 1, 2026
