Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
Consenting Adults Have Right To Choose Life Partners; Family Disapproval Can’t Curtail Their Autonomy: Delhi High Court
|A plea was filed by a married couple seeking protection from threats issued by the woman’s family.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that family opposition cannot impede the right of two consenting adults to choose their life partners.
A plea was filed by a married couple seeking protection from threats issued by the woman’s family.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held, “The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy.”
Advocate Anjaneya Mishra appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate Rahul Tyagi appeared for the Respondents.
Background
The petitioners, a couple who had lawfully solemnized their marriage, approached the Court seeking police protection due to alleged threats from the woman's family members. According to the petition, the woman’s legal guardian and mother strongly opposed the relationship and had made repeated threats, including threats of physical harm directed particularly at her.
Faced with escalating hostility and fearing for her safety, the woman decided to leave her parental home. She duly informed her mother of her intention to marry her partner before doing so.
The Delhi Police informed the Court that a missing person inquiry had been initiated following the woman’s departure from her home. However, the inquiry was closed after the woman confirmed that she had voluntarily married her partner and had left her home of her own free will. The police further stated that the closure of the inquiry and the status of the woman had been communicated to her mother.
Finding
In view of these developments, the Court concluded that no further direction was required concerning the “missing person” inquiry.
“Thus, in view of the status report closing the “missing” entry and noting the Petitioners' voluntary marriage, no further directions are necessary regarding this issue,” the Court recorded.
Considering the apprehensions of the couple, the Court directed the Delhi Police to ensure their safety and security. Specifically, the Station House Officer (SHO) of the jurisdictional police station was instructed to assign a beat officer to monitor the situation and respond promptly to any complaint of threats.
The Court ordered, “Upon any complaint of threat, the police shall promptly enter a DD entry and extend immediate assistance. For co- ordination, counsel for the Petitioners shall share the Petitioners' current place of residence and contact details with the Investigating Officer, today itself.”
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Prince Tyagi & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Anjaneya Mishra, Nidish Gupta, Sahil and Abhishek Shukla
Respondents: Advocates Rahul Tyagi, Sangeet Sibou, Priyansh Raj Singh Senger and Aniket Kumar Singh