In a significant intervention touching the core of personal liberty and choice, the Delhi High Court stepped in to address serious threats faced by a married couple from within the family, scrutinising the failure of state protection mechanisms when adults exercise their constitutional right to marry by choice, an issue with immediate consequences for life and liberty.
The controversy began when a couple, both consenting adults, approached the High Court seeking police protection after allegedly receiving life threats from the father of one spouse, who opposed their marriage. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the couple had married in accordance with Hindu rites and had lawfully registered their marriage, but their decision triggered hostility from the family, culminating in threats and the lodging of a criminal case against them.
At the outset, the petitioners gave up their plea seeking protection from coercive police action in the FIR and confined their grievance to the pressing threat to their safety.
The Court firmly anchored its reasoning in constitutional guarantees, reiterating that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is an intrinsic part of Article 21. Citing settled Apex Court precedent, the Court underscored that personal decisions relating to marriage are beyond societal or parental veto, observing that “the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution.” It further stressed that no individual, including parents, can threaten or interfere with the life and liberty of consenting adults for exercising this right.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition and directed local police authorities to provide immediate protection to the couple, granting them liberty to approach the SHO or beat officers whenever required, with corresponding duties cast on the police to ensure their safety.
Case Title: Laxmi Devi & Anr. Vs. State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(Crl) 366/2026, Crl.M.A. 3527/2026
Coram: Hon'ble. Justice Saurabh Banerjee,
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Mukesh Kumar, Adv.Vinod Kumar Verma, Adv. Sandeep Kumar,
Advocate for the Respondent: ASC Mr. Amol Sinha, Adv. Ashvini Kumar, Adv. Kshitiz Garg, Adv. Chavi Lazarus, SI Pravin Singh, PS: Kanjhawala,
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
