- Saaraa Khan Gets Married To Krish Pathak In Court Ceremony 14 Years After Divorce
- 'Diya Aur Baati Hum' actor Alan Kapoor, Raviraa Bhardwaj are now married
- Indian Man Celebrated Divorce with Milk Bath and 'Happy Divorced' Cake
- Desire for NRI grooms has dropped sharply in India
- Abhishek Sharma's Sister Komal Sharma Ties Knot With Lovish Oberoi
- 75-year-old man marries woman half his age, dies next morning
- Bride's dance leads groom to divorce her
- Anshula Kapoor gets engaged to Rohan Thakkar in dreamy purple Bandhani lehenga
- Balika Vadhu actress Avika Gor married to Milind Chandwani
- Rich groom gets rejected by bride’s dad for refusing dowry
- Tired of Waiting for Mr. Right, Woman Marries Herself
- Selena Gomez Marries Benny Blanco in an Intimate California Wedding
- Bride Shocked After Finding Out Sister-In-Law Live-Streamed Wedding To Husband’s Ex
- Google Gemini Nano Banana Trend Redefines Pre-Wedding Photography With Viral AI Images
- Wedding Guest Caught Sneaking Chicken Leg Piece Into Purse, Video Leaves Internet in Splits
- Indian-Origin CEO Marries Girlfriend In ‘2,700-Year-Old’ Spanish Town
- Groom Invites Street Dogs to His Wedding, Video Goes Viral
- London Groom’s Grand Baraat With Horse and Luxury Cars Goes Viral
No Law Prevents an Adult Woman from Living with a Married Man: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, on August 18, 2025, reaffirmed that an adult woman has the fundamental right to live with the person of her choice. Court underscored that there is no law that prevents an adult woman with a "mind of her own" from living with a man of her choice, even if he's married. A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Pradeep Mittal said, "if she gets married to him, the same being a non-cognizable offence, only the first wife can register a case against her husband and her if such an eventuality takes place, to prosecute them for bigamy."
Court stressed the principle that an adult with a "mind of her own" cannot be forced to live with her parents against her will. The order was passed in a case involving a Corpus, identified only as 'X', whose age was confirmed to be more than 18 years. According to the court documents, 'X' had been produced before the bench after she had eloped with a person. Upon questioning by the court, 'X' explicitly stated her wish to live with the person she had eloped with.
