Shalu Mishra vs. State of U.P. Throu. Its Prin. Secy. and Ors.

Shalu Mishra married Sunil Mishra against her parents’ wishes, and her parents wished to forcibly break up the couple. Shalu’s husband and her parents both claimed to be her rightful guardians and wanted to claim her custody, even though Shalu claimed that she was a major and wanted to stay with her husband. Amid custody disputes, Shalu was forcibly detained at Nari Niketan as the court tried to determine her age. The age on her educational certificate differed from the age determined in a medical exam, which further delayed the process.

Shalu Mishra filed this habeas corpus petition with the Allahabad High Court for release from Nari Niketan. The high court demanded her release regardless of her age, on the basis that even minors cannot be detained against their wishes unless they are considered in conflict with the law. The court also determined that Shalu and Sunil’s marriage was not void even if Shalu was a minor at the time, and thus her husband had the right to seek her custody.

There is no age bar when it comes to valuing the liberty of a person be she a woman or be he a gent. Even a child has a right to avail of his or her liberties.

Shalu Mishra vs. State of U.P. Throu. Its Prin. Secy. and Others2013(5) ALJ 426

Smt. Kanchan Verma vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

While Kanchan Verma was leaving her workplace with Nasir Ali, a crowd gathered around as Verma’s family tried to stop her. The family reportedly opposed their relationship on the basis of religion. Verma and Nasir, a Hindu woman and a Muslim man, were detained under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. (“Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences”). Verma filed a petition of habeas corpus claiming she was being wrongly detained. After a month in detention on the sub-divisional magistrate’s orders, the Allahabad High Court affirmed that her detention was unconstitutional and ordered her immediate release.

We are of the opinion that the liberty to move, mix, mingle, talk, share through company cannot be substantially curtailed and the action taken was totally violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. …[W]e are of the opinion that the action of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not only arbitrary but there was total deprivation of the personal liberty of the petitioner, which was issued without any authority of law.

Smt. Kanchan Verma vs. State of U.P. and Ors.2015(2)ACR1851

Gajraj Singh vs. State of U.P.

Gajraj Singh’s daughter and Ajit Singh married against her parents’ wishes while she was still a minor, and she was being forcibly detained at Nari Niketan throughout the custody disputes. Gajraj and Ajit both filed applications to claim her custody, while the girl herself indicated to the court that she wanted to leave with her husband. The lower court rejected both applications to claim the girl’s custody and decided to detain her until she attained majority, at which point they would release her. Gajraj Singh then filed this petition to quash the lower court’s order and have his daughter released into his custody. The high court determined that the girl’s detention at Nari Niketan was illegal and that she should be released and allowed to go according to her own wish.

It is well-settled law that a minor cannot be confined in Nari Niketan against her wishes. … In the case in hand, the question of the applicant being a minor is irrelevant as even a minor cannot be kept in protective home against her will.

Paragraphs 5 and 7Gajraj Singh Vs. State of U.P.2015(3)ADJ350