Consenting Adults’ Right To Marry Cannot Be Interfered With By Society, State Machinery Or Parents; Delhi High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee allowed a writ petition by a married couple seeking police protection, directing that they may approach the local station house officer and beat staff whenever any threat arises and that assistance be extended to them. The Court noted the couple are consenting adults who married by choice and said such decisions do not require approval from society or family, nor can parents or others interfere. It added that the choice to marry forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 and is also reflected in international human rights norms.
The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent nos.1 to 6 to provide protection against alleged life threats extended by respondent no.7, the father of petitioner no.1.
At the outset, counsel for the petitioners stated that they did not wish to press prayer (b), which sought directions restraining coercive action in connection with FIR No.475/2025 under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 lodged at PS Bhira, District Kheri Lakhimpur, Uttar Pradesh at the instance of respondent no.7.
It was submitted that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are consenting adults who solemnised their marriage on 30.07.2025 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at Arya Samaj Marriage Vedic Trust, Delhi, and subsequently registered the marriage on 06.10.2025 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Khanjhawala, Delhi. According to the petitioners, respondent no.7 was unhappy with the marriage and had been threatening them.
The Court observed that “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.”
Referring to precedent, the Court recorded the observations of the Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. and reproduced: “The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution… Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the 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 reproduced the observations in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another, stating: “…such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished… once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes… they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage… the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that… the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence…”
The Court further observed that “since the petitioners herein are both major and are well within their rights to marry each other… no one, much less the Society, the State machinery or even their parents/ relatives/ friends can cause interference to the decision of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever from now on.”
It stated that “no person much less like the respondent no.7 i.e. father of the petitioner no.1 herein can be allowed to threaten the life and liberty of the petitioners as they do not require any social approval for their personal decisions and choices.”
The Court directed that “the petitioners are free to call or get in touch with either the SHO, or the Beat Constable and HC Ajendra, PS.: Khanjhawala, Delhi, as and when the need so arises.”
“If the petitioners chose to reside within the jurisdiction of any other police station, they will apprise about the same and give the complete details including the address to the SHO of the concerned P.S. within a period of three days from shifting.”
“The concerned SHO and/or Beat Constable of the Police Station shall extend the aforesaid benefit to the petitioners.” The petition along with the pending application was disposed of in these terms.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Vinod Kumar Verma and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Kshitiz Garg and Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Advocates with SI Pravin Singh, PS Kanjhawala
Case Title: Laxmi Devi & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 366/2026
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
