Delhi High Court Grants Police Protection to Adult Couple, Reaffirms Constitutional Right to Marital Choice
In a significant ruling that reinforces the fundamental right to personal liberty, the Delhi High Court has granted police protection to an adult couple who approached the court alleging threats from the woman's father following their marriage. The court emphatically stated that neither family nor society can interfere with the decisions of consenting adults, holding that the couple is entitled to protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Court Order and Legal Framework
On February 3, 2026, Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the order while adjudicating a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petition specifically sought directions to police authorities to provide protection against alleged threats from the woman's father. Notably, the couple did not press a separate prayer seeking restraint on coercive action in connection with an FIR lodged against them in Uttar Pradesh.
Background of the Case
The petitioners' counsel informed the court that both individuals were consenting adults who had married on July 30, 2025, in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies at an Arya Samaj temple in Delhi. Their marriage was subsequently registered before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in October 2025. However, the union was solemnized against the wishes of the woman's father, who allegedly issued threats afterward. An FIR had been registered in Uttar Pradesh against the couple under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita due to the ongoing family conflict.
Constitutional Principles and Judicial Reasoning
The central question before the court was whether an adult couple legally married by choice but facing family opposition is entitled to protection of life and liberty from state authorities. While the petition's facts were specific, the court approached the matter within a broader constitutional context encompassing autonomy, dignity, and the right to make personal decisions regarding marriage.
The court placed the dispute squarely within the framework of personal liberty under Article 21, noting that marriage is a right flowing from human liberty and individual discretion. 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."
The court acknowledged that the petitioners, as adults who entered marriage of their own free will, deserve constitutional protection, and that external interference cannot be justified.
Precedent and Established Jurisprudence
To reinforce its reasoning, the High Court invoked established Supreme Court jurisprudence 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… Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners."
The court also referenced Lata Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, which condemned harassment of couples in inter-caste or inter-religious unions. That decision directed authorities to protect such couples and pursue those issuing threats, stating: "This is a free and democratic country, and 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."
Court's Directives and Practical Relief
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."
Granting practical relief rather than abstract declarations, the court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioners could contact specified local police officials whenever necessary for protection. Additionally, if the couple shifts residence outside the concerned police station's jurisdiction, they must inform the relevant SHO within three days with updated address details. Authorities were instructed to extend protection whenever sought, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
Conclusion and Broader Implications
The Delhi High Court ultimately held that the petitioners, as consenting adults lawfully married, are entitled to protection of life and liberty and can seek police assistance as needed. Through this ruling, the court reaffirmed that constitutional protection of personal liberty must translate into practical safeguards when individuals face threats for exercising their freedom to choose partners. The case, registered as W.P.(CRL) 366/2026, CRL.M.A. 3527/2026 (Laxmi Devi & Anr. vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.), sets a clear precedent for similar situations across the country.
