JUDGMENT : 1. The sequence of events, as these emerge from the study of the file, under consideration are that the petitioner got married with a woman, namely, Monica Devi (Asma) daughter of Bharat Singh R/o Maligam, Ramban. It is stated that she is 19 years of age and, on 3rd of November, 2017, she entered into a wedlock with the petitioner out of her free will and volition. It is further pleaded that, after their marriage, they lived peacefully as husband and wife. It is also stated that this marriage did not augur well with the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. They got annoyed and are bent upon to cause undue interference in the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner and his wife were threatened by the said respondents and were forced to leave their house. It is also contended that the said respondents have lodged a false and frivolous case against them at Police Station, Ramban. They have filed a petition under Section 561-A in which the Investigating Agency has been directed to ensure that the directions issued by the Court are not flouted. The petitioner has proceeded to state that the respondents took his wife from the Court premises and confined her at some unknown place, probably at the residential house of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and, therefore, they are guilty of wrongfully confining her. On the above set of facts, the petitioner has implored for the grant of the following reliefs in his favour: “In the premises, it is, therefore, very respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this petition and direct the respondent No.4 (SHO P/S Ramban) to rescue the said Monica Devi wife of the petitioner from the illegal confinement of the respondents No. 3 and 4 and produce her before this Hon’ble Court and set her free allowing her to move about according to her free wishes.” 2. Heard and considered. 3. By order dated 30th of November, 2017, of this Court, the Station House Officer (SHO), police Station, Ramban, was directed to submit a status report and, subsequently, by order dated 7th of December, 2017, he was directed to ensure the presence of Monica Devi (Asma) before this Court on the next date. Heard and considered. 3. By order dated 30th of November, 2017, of this Court, the Station House Officer (SHO), police Station, Ramban, was directed to submit a status report and, subsequently, by order dated 7th of December, 2017, he was directed to ensure the presence of Monica Devi (Asma) before this Court on the next date. It was on May 11th, 2018, that the said Monica Devi (Asma) was produced before this Court, who was identified by the counsel for the petitioner, namely, Mr Musavir Mir. Accordingly, the Registrar (Judicial) of this Wing of the High Court was directed to record the statement of Monica Devi (Asma). The learned Registrar Judicial recorded her statement on the same date, which reads as under: “that I am studying in the B.A. 2nd year in the government Degree College, Ramban. That I have love affair with the petitioner Mohammad Nayeem since last three years. That my relatives lodged an FIR against the petitioner with Police Station Ramban on false grounds. Then I married with the petitioner at Srinagar on 03.11.2017. That I and the petitioner entered into a marriage agreement at Srinagar. That Nikah was also performed before some Molvi at Soura. That the police took me from outside the High Court Premises and I was taken to Ramban. Then I was forced to give a statement before the Court at Ramban. That I was kept at Ramban in the home of maternal uncle namely Mangal Singh for few months. Then I was being pressurized by my relatives to give a similar statement before the Hon’ble High Court. Then I came out of the home of my maternal uncle and telephoned the petitioner. That a second FIR was also lodged against the petitioner by my mother which is also baseless. That I am presently living with the petitioner at Srinagar out of my own free will and consent and without any coercion and compulsion. I want to live with the petitioner who is my husband.” 4. Dealing with an almost identical issue, the Apex Court of the country in the case of Nandkumar & Anr. That I am presently living with the petitioner at Srinagar out of my own free will and consent and without any coercion and compulsion. I want to live with the petitioner who is my husband.” 4. Dealing with an almost identical issue, the Apex Court of the country in the case of Nandkumar & Anr. v. The State of Kerela & Ors., bearing Criminal Appeal No.597 of 2018, held as follows: “In a recent judgment rendered by this Court in the case of ‘Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors.’ [2018 SCC Online SC 343], after stating the law pertaining to writ of Habeas Corpus, this writ has been considered as “a great constitutional privilege” or “the first security of civil liberty”. The Court made the following pertinent observations: - “28. Thus, the pivotal purpose of the said writ is to see that no one is deprived of his/her liberty without sanction of law. It is the primary duty of the State to see that the said right is not sullied in any manner whatsoever and its sanctity is not affected by any kind of subterfuge. The role of the Court is to see that the detenue is produced before it, find out about his/her independent choice and see to it that the person is released form illegal restraint. The issue will be a different one when the detention is not illegal. What is seminal is to remember that the song of liberty is sung with sincerity and the choice of an individual is appositely respected and conferred its esteemed status as the Constitution guarantees. It is so as the expression of choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, if the said choice does not transgress any valid legal framework. Once that aspect is clear, the enquiry and determination have to come to an end. 29. In the instant case, the High Court, as is noticeable from the impugned verdict, has been erroneously guided by some kind of social phenomenon that was frescoed before it. The writ court has taken exception to the marriage of the respondent No. 9 herein with the appellant. It felt perturbed. As we see, there was nothing to be taken exception to. The writ court has taken exception to the marriage of the respondent No. 9 herein with the appellant. It felt perturbed. As we see, there was nothing to be taken exception to. Initially, Hadiya had declined to go with her father and expressed her desire to stay with the respondent No. 7 before the High Court and in the first writ it had so directed. The adamantine attitude of the father, possibly impelled by obsessive parental love, compelled him to knock at the doors of the High Court in another Habeas Corpus petition whereupon the High Court directed the production of Hadiya who appeared on the given date along with the appellant herein whom the High Court calls a stranger. But Hadiya would insist that she had entered into marriage with him. True it is, she had gone with the respondent No. 7 before the High Court but that does not mean and can never mean that she, as a major, could not enter into a marital relationship. But, the High Court unwarrantably took exception to the same forgetting that parental love or concern cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married. And, that is where the error has crept in. The High Court should have, after an interaction as regards her choice, directed that she was free to go where she wished to.” The Court also emphasised due importance to the right of choice of an adult person which the Constitution accords to an adult person as under: “54. It is obligatory to state here that expression of choice in accord with law is acceptance of individual identity. Curtailment of that expression and the ultimate action emanating therefrom on the conceptual structuralism of obeisance to the societal will destroy the individualistic entity of a person. The social values and morals have their space but they are not above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom. The said freedom is both a constitutional and a human right. Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible. Faith of a person is intrinsic to his/her meaningful existence. To have the freedom of faith is essential to his/her automony; and it strengthens the core norms of the Constitution. The said freedom is both a constitutional and a human right. Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible. Faith of a person is intrinsic to his/her meaningful existence. To have the freedom of faith is essential to his/her automony; and it strengthens the core norms of the Constitution. Choosing a faith is the substratum of individuality and sans it, the right of choice becomes a shadow. It has to be remembered that the realization of a right is more important than the conferment of the right. Such actualization indeed ostracises any kind of societal notoriety and keeps at bay the patriarchal supremacy. It is so because the individualistic faith and expression of choice are fundamental for the fructification of the right. Thus, we would like to call it indispensable preliminary condition. 55. Non-acceptance of her choice would simply mean creating discomfort to the constitutional right by a Constitutional Court which is meant to be the protector of fundamental rights. Such a situation cannot remotely be conceived. The duty of the Court is to uphold the right and not to abridge the sphere of the right unless there is a valid authority of law. Sans lawful sanction, the centripodal value of liberty should allow an individual to write his/her script. The individual signature is the insignia of the concept. We also reproduce the following discussion from the concurring judgment rendered by Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in the said case: “81. In a more recent decision of a three Judge Bench in Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas’, this Court dealt with a case where the daughter of the appellant and respondent, who was a major had expressed a desire to reside in Kuwait, where she was pursuing her education, with her father. This Court observed thus: “9…..She has, without any hesitation, clearly stated that she intends to go back to Kuwait to pursue her career. In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that as a major, she is entitled to exercise her choice and freedom and the Court cannot get into the aspect whether she has been forced by the father or not. There may be ample reasons on her behalf to go back to her father in Kuwait, but we are not concerned with her reasons. There may be ample reasons on her behalf to go back to her father in Kuwait, but we are not concerned with her reasons. What she has stated before the Court, that alone matters and that is the heart of the reasoning for this Court, which keeps all controversies at bay. 10. It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual’s life has its own significance. She/He is entitled to make her/his choice. The courts cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation.” 5. In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors., bearing Writ petition (Civil) No.231 of 2010, the Apex Court of the country held as under: “Assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity. That is why the French philosopher and thinker, Simone Weil, has said: - “Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense consists in the ability to choose.” When the ability to choose is crushed in the name of class honour and the person’s physical frame is treated with absolute indignity, a chilling effect dominates over the brains and bones of the society at large. The question that poignantly emanates for consideration is whether the elders Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUBHASH CHANDER Date: 2018.03.27 of the family or clan can ever be allowed to proclaim a 12:27:07 IST Reason: verdict guided by some notion of passion and eliminate the life of the young who have exercised their choice to get married against the wishes of their elders or contrary to the customary practice of the clan. The answer has to be an emphatic “No”. It is because the sea of liberty and the ingrained sense of dignity do not countenance such treatment inasmuch as the pattern of behaviour is based on some extra-constitutional perception. Class honour, howsoever perceived, cannot smother the choice of an individual which he or she is entitled to enjoy under our compassionate Constitution. It is because the sea of liberty and the ingrained sense of dignity do not countenance such treatment inasmuch as the pattern of behaviour is based on some extra-constitutional perception. Class honour, howsoever perceived, cannot smother the choice of an individual which he or she is entitled to enjoy under our compassionate Constitution. And this right of enjoyment of liberty deserves to be continually and zealously guarded so that it can thrive with strength and flourish with resplendence. It is also necessary to state here that the old order has to give way to the new. Feudal perception has to melt into oblivion paving the smooth path for liberty. That is how the statement of Joseph J. Ellis becomes relevant. He has propounded: - “We don’t live in a world in which there exists a single definition of honour anymore, and it’s a fool that hangs on to the traditional standards and hopes that the world will come around him.” 6. Testing the instant petition on the touchstone of the above judicial dictums, admittedly, Monica Devi (Asma) is more than 18 years of age. Her date of birth is 22nd of January, 1999, as is brought to the fore from the perusal of the ‘Matriculation Certificate’ issued by the State Board of School Education in her favour as also the ‘Marriage Agreement’ executed by the petitioner and the Monica Devi (Asma). The law on the subject is well settled. Two adults have a right to live together. From a bare perusal of the material on record, what gets revealed is that Monica Devi (Asma) is major. The contention of the petitioner is that he and the said Monica Devi (Asma) entered into a marital tie on the 3rd of November, 2017. Both of them had attained the age of majority on the said date, meaning thereby, that it was the decision of two adults to enter into the wedlock. Where two adults agree to enter into a marital tie, nobody can interfere or harass the couple. The said Monica Devi (Asma) might have been conscious of her welfare in entering into this wedlock. On the face of the statement of the said Monica Devi (Asma) recorded by the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this wing of the High Court, the confinement of Monica Devi (Asma) on the part of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is unrealistic and illegal. On the face of the statement of the said Monica Devi (Asma) recorded by the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this wing of the High Court, the confinement of Monica Devi (Asma) on the part of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is unrealistic and illegal. The statement of Monica Devi (Asma) clearly indicates that an incorrect and unbelievable story has been projected by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. This story appears to be a false, frivolous and a ploy devised to force and coerce her to run away from the marriage that she solemnized with the petitioner. An adult woman has an unfettered right to live a life of her choice. 7. Viewed in the above context, the instant petition is allowed and the said Monica Devi(Asma) is set free to move according to her will and wish with her husband, namely, Mohammad Nayeem, i.e. the petitioner herein. 8. Disposed of alongwith connected MP(s).