Delhi High Court Upholds Marriage Rights, Orders Police Protection for Threatened Couple
In a significant ruling affirming the constitutional rights of consenting adults, the Delhi High Court has directed police authorities to provide comprehensive protection to a young married couple facing threats and harassment from family members opposed to their union. The court's order, dated August 5, 2025, emphasizes that family disapproval cannot be used to undermine the autonomy, dignity, and personal freedom of legally married adults.
Court's Constitutional Stand on Personal Liberty
Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the case, delivered a powerful judgment stating that the right of two consenting adults to choose life partners and cohabit peacefully constitutes a fundamental aspect of personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court explicitly noted that regardless of the intensity of family opposition, this constitutional autonomy cannot be curtailed.
"Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy," Justice Narula asserted, referencing consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter. The court clarified that its directions were purely preventive in nature, aimed solely at protecting the couple's right to life and liberty, without endorsing either party's claims in the family dispute.
Background of the Petition
The case originated from a petition filed by a couple who married on July 23, 2025, according to Hindu rites and customs at an Arya Samaj trust in Delhi. Both individuals were legal adults who presented marriage certificates and age-proof documents establishing their lawful and voluntary union.
The petitioners expressed genuine fear of coercion and physical violence from the woman's parents, who vehemently opposed the relationship. According to court documents:
- The woman had moved out of her parental home on July 18, 2025, after informing her mother about her marriage intentions
- Even after the marriage, the couple faced continued intimidation through threatening calls and messages
- Some threats were reportedly routed through personnel at the local police station
- The couple sought protection and restraint against potential police action based on complaints filed at the family's behest
Police Investigation and Court Findings
During proceedings, the State submitted a status report revealing that the woman's mother had filed a missing person complaint, resulting in a daily diary entry at the police station. However, the investigation took a decisive turn when the Investigating Officer directly contacted the woman.
The woman categorically stated that she had married the petitioner voluntarily and left her parental home by choice. After verifying the marriage certificate and confirming her statements, police closed the missing person inquiry and informed her parents accordingly.
The court noted that with the missing complaint resolved and the marriage's voluntary nature undisputed, no further directions were necessary regarding that specific issue.
Preventive Protection Measures Ordered
Addressing the couple's legitimate fears, the High Court issued specific preventive directions to ensure their safety:
- The State must provide sufficient security to the couple
- The Station House Officer must appoint a beat officer sensitized about the court order
- The couple must receive direct contact information, including a 24x7 helpline number
- Upon any threat complaint, police must immediately record a daily diary entry and provide prompt assistance
- The couple's counsel must share their current address and contact details with the Investigating Officer for coordination
The court emphasized that police have a duty-bound responsibility to protect such couples from intimidation or harm, reinforcing the state's obligation to safeguard constitutional rights against private threats.
Legal Representation and Case Details
The case, titled Prince Tyagi and Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors (W.P.(CRL) 2419/2025 & CRL.M.A. 22758/2025, CRL.M.A. 22759/2025), featured representation from multiple advocates on both sides. The petitioners were represented by Mr. Anjaneya Mishra, Mr. Nidish Gupta, Mr. Sahil, and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, while the State's response was presented by Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC with supporting counsel.
This ruling adds to growing jurisprudence protecting inter-caste, inter-faith, and self-choice marriages against familial opposition, establishing clear protocols for police protection when constitutional rights face private threats.
