Parents move HC for daughter, only to promise never to interfere in her life

Having moved the High Court believing that their teenage daughter was in illegal confinement, a school van driver and his wife were in for a shock when the 19-year-old appeared before the court only to submit that she does not wish to meet them, forcing them to undertake that they will never interfere in her life.

Narela resident Subhash had moved the court by way of a writ of Habeas corpus seeking direction to the Delhi Police to produce their daughter Sapna (name changed) before the court.

Looking for daughter

Subhash said in his plea that Sapna had left for college on September 30 but failed to return home. Upon inquiry from the college, the couple discovered that Sapna had not attended classes on that day. The family launched a search, but in vain. That evening, Subhash was informed by an acquaintance that Sapna had married someone from the neighbourhood.

Subhash, however, apprehended that his daughter was in illegal confinement. Dissatisfied with the police response, he moved the court.

On its direction, Sapna was produced before the court, where she met her parents and submitted that she got married of her own free will.

‘Accept the marriage’

Subhash’s counsel said: “Her husband has criminal antecedents, making her parents fear that she was in trouble. When they saw Sapna’s attitude that she didn’t want to remain in touch with them, they were forced to undertake that they will not interfere in her life and that her husband will take over all the responsibilities.”

Despite Subhash and his wife accepting the marriage, Sapna allegedly said that she did not wish to meet them now.

“Sapna submits that she does not want to meet her parents. Although the parents submit that they have accepted the marriage, but keeping in view the attitude of Sapna, they wish to cut all social ties with her. However, both the parties undertake not to interfere in the day-to-day life of each other. The husband of Sapna is present in court; he submits that he would remain responsible for her well-being,” Justice G. S. Sistani noted while disposing of the petition.