Reaffirming that the freedom to choose one’s life partner forms a core element of constitutional liberty, the Delhi High Court granted protection to an adult couple who approached it alleging threats from the woman’s father following their marriage. The Court observed that neither family nor society can interfere with the decision of consenting adults and held that the couple was entitled to protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.On 03.02.2026, Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the order adjudicating a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petition sought a direction to police authorities to provide protection against alleged threats from the woman’s father. The couple did not press a separate prayer seeking restraint on coercive action in connection with an FIR lodged against them.Background and Petitioners’ CaseThe Counsel of the petitioners informed the Court that the couple were consenting adult and they got married on 30.07.2025 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at an Arya Samaj temple in Delhi. The marriage was then registered before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in October 2025.The counsel further informed the Court that the marriage was solemnized against the wishes of the woman’s father, who thereafter allegedly issued threats. It was further submitted that an FIR had been registered in Uttar Pradesh against the couple under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita due to the family conflict.Issues Before the CourtThe major question before the Court was whether an adult couple who were married legally through choice but faced the opposition of members of the family was entitled to protection of life and liberty from State authorities.Although the facts of the petition were relatively circumscribed, the Court approached the problem in a larger constitutional context, which includes autonomy, dignity, and right to take a personal decision in the matters relating to marriage.Reasoning of the CourtThe Court placed the dispute squarely within the framework of personal liberty under Article 21. It noted that marriage is a right which flows from human liberty and individual discretion, and it is observed that such freedom is not only indicated by national constitutional rights but also by principles of human rights.The order emphasized:“the right to marry is an incident of human liberty and is a matter of one’s choice, which is not only underscored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but is also an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and gives protection of life and personal liberty to all persons like the petitioners herein whereby it is the inherent right of every individual to exercise personal choices, especially in matters relating to marriage. The petitioners herein are well and truly entitled for protection under Article 21 of The Constitution of India.”The Court acknowledged that the petitioners were adults and had entered into marriage on their own free will and therefore, deserved constitutional protection and that the intervention by the outside party could not be justified.To reinforce its reasoning, the High Court invoked established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court affirming autonomy in marital choice.From Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., the Court reproduced observations stressing the centrality of personal liberty:“The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21… Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees… is the historic ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness… Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners.”The Court also referred to Lata Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh that condemned harassment of couples who entered inter-caste or inter-religious unions. In that decision, the Supreme Court directed authorities to protect such couples and pursue those who issue threats:“This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes… If the parents… do not approve… the maximum they can do is cut off social relations… but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence.”Using these authorities, the Court placed the current dispute in the context of a constitutional doctrine of marital autonomy.The Court noted that when adults make a choice to get married, their choice should be upheld and not interfered with by family members, the society or state actors.The order recorded:“No one, much less the Society, the State machinery or even their parents… can cause interference to the decision of the petitioners…”It further held:“No person much less… the father… can be allowed to threaten the life and liberty of the petitioners… they do not require any social approval for their personal decisions and choices.”Allowing the petition, the Court provided practical relief rather than abstract declarations. It directed that the petitioners could contact specified local police officials whenever necessary for protection.The Court additionally directed that if the couple shifted residence outside the concerned police station’s jurisdiction, they must inform the relevant SHO within three days, providing updated address details.Authorities were instructed to extend protection whenever sought, and the petition was disposed of in those terms.The Delhi High Court ultimately held that the petitioners, being consenting adults who had lawfully married, were entitled to protection of life and liberty and could seek police assistance as needed. The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of with protective directions.Through this, the Court reaffirmed that the constitutional protection of personal liberty must translate into practical safeguards when people are threatened as a result of exercising their freedom to select their partners.W.P.(CRL) 366/2026, CRL.M.A. 3527/2026LAXMI DEVI & ANR. Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.For Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Vinod Kumar Verma and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Kshitiz Garg and Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Advocates with SI Pravin Singh, PS: Kanjhawala(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
