Supreme Court refuses plea by married Spiritual guru for release of live-in partner from parents' custody; refers to Britney Spears case from US

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a plea by a 42-year-old spiritual practitioner seeking release of his 21-year old live-in partner from the custody of her parents. .A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana, and Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy said that the petitioner is a married person with dubious antecedents and the girl is also not in the right frame of mind. "The thing is the facts are such and the antecedent of the petitioner is such that it does not inspire confidence," said Justice Roy. "The girl is fragile state of mind. She is 21 and does not know what she is doing. The man is married with two children," the CJI weighed in. Interestingly, the Court also referred to the Britney Spears case playing out in USA."One week back we saw a case in the USA where laws, culture is different. In USA unless an adult gives a consent they cant be given treatment. Now the entire family is on the roads because of that since a mentally unstable person cannot give consent," the CJI said. The petitioner had approached the Supreme Court challenging a Kerala High Court judgment which dismissed his Habeas Corpus plea seeking release of his 21-year-old partner.Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioner, said that the girl is an adult and is under the illegal detention of her parents. "There is nothing illegal. She is with her parents," the Court said. Sankaranarayanan maintained that the woman should be allowed to decide for herself. "Question is can she decide for herself. what is the conduct and history of the petitioner. How can the girl be entrusted to him?," the CJI asked. Sankaranarayanan said that he was not seeking custody of the woman but only wanted that she be released from parents custody. "The girl who is an adult should be allowed to decide for herself. The petitioner does not want her with him," he submitted. The Court, however, maintained that the antecedents of the petitioner cannot be overlooked. "This is a case where it is clear that she should not go to the petitioner. Rather than that its better she is with her parents," remarked Justice Bopanna. Sankaranarayanan said that the Court should interact with the girl before taking any decision. The Court made it clear that it will not interfere in the matter. Nevertheless, it called for a report from the concerned District Judge after interacting with the girl and her parents. "Taking into account peculiar facts and circumstances we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. To satisfy ourselves we request the registrar of the high court to have district judge examine the case and interact with girl and parents and send a report to this court," the Court stated in its order..Spiritual practitioner moves Supreme Court for release of his live-in partner from parents' custody.The High Court had earlier dismissed the petition based on the finding that the woman was not capable of taking a decision on her own.This conclusion itself was based on an interaction which the Bench had with the woman during which the woman, as per the Bench, showed signs of vulnerability occasioned by mental disturbance..The High Court had also distinguished this case from the facts that led up to the Supreme Court’s notable Shafin Jahan (Hadiya) judgment. In that case, the woman had married a person and converted of her own free will, while here despite a claim of a live-in relationship, there was nothing on record that demonstrated as such, the High Court stated.The Court had also adverted to a report on petitioner's antecedents which divulged details of a prior child sexual offence case he was supposedly accused of, but his name was removed from the list of accused after the girl in question retracted her statement.His widowed mother, who lives on the ground floor of his house, reportedly expressed to the police her disapproval and suspicion of her son’s activities or so-called spiritual life..For Habeas Corpus, illegal detention needs to be proved: Supreme Court on plea for release of live-in partner from parents' custody.Earlier, a Bench of the then Chief Justice of India (CJI), SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian had, while hearing the case, remarked that a woman who is mentally unwell and in the custody of her parents cannot be construed as illegal detention.."Custody is different than illegal detention. Finding of illegal detention is sine qua non for maintainability of Habeas Corpus plea," CJI Bobde said.It had then asked the petitioner to approach the High Court for a conclusive finding on whether or not there was illegal detention or not.After the High Court rejected the petitioner's review petition, he had filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and advocate A Karthik represented the petitioner.