The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad considered a petition filed by a 21‑year‑old Muslim woman who had left her parental home in Hyderabad to avoid a marriage arranged by her family. Her parents subsequently lodged a missing persons complaint with the Mumbai Police, seeking the woman’s return. The woman approached the High Court seeking protection of her liberty and direction to the police to refrain from acting on the complaint.

The court began its analysis by noting that the woman had attained the age of majority under the Indian Majority Act, 1875, and therefore possessed full legal capacity to make decisions concerning her person, including the choice of residence and marriage. The bench emphasized that the right to decide where one lives and whom one marries is an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Drawing on Supreme Court pronouncements, the bench referred to the judgment in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368, which affirmed that the choice of a life partner is a matter of individual autonomy protected under Article 21. It also relied on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475, where the Court held that an adult woman has the freedom to live with a person of her choice and that neither her family nor the State can impose restrictions on that freedom.

The bench further observed that the filing of a missing persons complaint by parents against an adult daughter who has voluntarily left the home amounts to an attempt to use the criminal process to compel her to return against her will. Such a complaint, the court held, is not maintainable when the allegation is that the adult has left of her own accord. The police, therefore, must first verify whether the person is indeed missing against her will before registering any complaint.

In its operative order, the Bombay High Court directed the Mumbai Police not to entertain the missing persons complaint filed by the woman’s parents and to take no steps that would impede her liberty. The court also warned that any action taken by the police in disregard of this direction would attract contempt proceedings.

The judgment underscores the principle that parental authority does not extend to overriding the autonomous choices of an adult child. It reaffirms that the State, including its law‑enforcement agencies, must act as a guarantor of constitutional freedoms rather than as an instrument for enforcing social or familial expectations. The decision adds to the growing jurisprudence that protects the right of adults to make intimate personal choices without coercion, and it serves as a precedent for similar cases where families attempt to use legal processes to prevent consensual relationships or independent living arrangements.

Legal commentators note that the ruling clarifies the procedural obligations of police when confronted with complaints concerning adults who have left their homes. It mandates a preliminary inquiry into the voluntariness of the departure, thereby safeguarding individuals from being subjected to unlawful detention or pressure under the guise of a missing persons investigation.

By affirming the woman’s legal competence to make choices about her residence and marriage, the Bombay High Court reinforces the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and sets a clear benchmark for the limits of familial and State interference in the personal affairs of consenting adults.