Female Adult have Right to Leave Home & Decide where to Reside : High Court

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday 18th April 2018 in Dr. Sangamitra Acharya Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) has held that in a habeas corpus petition when the plea before the Court is that a person should be protected against coercive retributive action of her parents, for making personal life choices, the Court shall not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction to grant relief.

A bench comprising of Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar and Justice C. Hari Shankar observed the actions of parents in removing her forcibly from the residence and getting her admitted without her consent to the Mental Hospital, with the aid of the local police, the ambulance staff, and the staff of Hospital, was in clear violation of fundamental rights to life, liberty and the right to dignity enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

This violation of her rights was triggered by her exercising her freedom of choice as a female adult by choosing to leave her home, and deciding where she would like to reside.

the Judgment said.

The Court rejects the plea of parents that they acted in the larger interests of their daughter and in consideration of her well-being since their actions indicate the opposite.

Comments

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Land Acquisition - National Highway - Inadequate Compensation - What is the Remedy [JUDGMENT]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 (1) - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(5) & 3J - What is the remedy of the appellant to redress his grievance regarding inadequate compensation granted for the land acquired - The court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators - It can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. [Paras 15 – 18]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog