The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed the constitutional right of two consenting adults to live together without state or family interference, while directing police authorities to provide protection if threatened. The judgment distinguishes between protection of personal liberty and adjudication of marriage validity, setting clear boundaries for police intervention in marital disputes between majors.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sumaila and another, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking protection of their lives and liberty. They claimed to have married each other on 20.06.2024 under Muslim rituals and submitted an application for marriage registration on 22.06.2026. The petitioners alleged threat perception from their family members and sought a direction to the respondents not to interfere in their married life.
Key Facts
- The petitioners married on 20.06.2024 under Muslim rituals
- Marriage registration application submitted on 22.06.2026
- Petitioner No. 1's date of birth: 18.05.2004 (High School Certificate-cum-Marks Sheet)
- Petitioner No. 2's date of birth: 01.01.2002 (Aadhar Card and PAN Card)
- Both petitioners are majors as of the date of marriage
- No First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the petitioners in Uttar Pradesh
- Petitioners claim to be living as husband and wife and fear for their lives
Procedural History
- 24.06.2026: Writ petition (Writ - C No. 24629 of 2026) filed before the Allahabad High Court
- 29.06.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- A direction to the respondents not to interfere in their married life
- Protection of their lives and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the state or family members can interfere in the right of two consenting majors to live together, and whether the court can direct police protection without adjudicating the validity of their marriage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following precedents:
- Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475, where the Supreme Court held that two majors have the right to live together without interference
- Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396, which reaffirmed the right to personal liberty under Article 21 for consenting adults
It was contended that since no FIR or criminal case had been lodged against the petitioners, the police had no right to adopt coercive measures against them.
For the Respondent/State
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel stated that, as per instructions, no FIR or criminal case had been lodged against the petitioners.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioners, being majors, had the right to live together without interference from the state or family members. The Court relied on the principles established in Lata Singh and Bhagwan Dass, which hold that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right of two consenting adults to live together.
"In a case where two individuals who are major and have got married on their own free will and consent then no restriction or interference can be made in their right to live together."
The Court clarified that it was not adjudicating upon the validity of the alleged marriage between the petitioners. Instead, it focused on the protection of their right to live together without threat to their lives or liberty. The Court also noted that the order would not impede any pending investigation by the police authorities, and the law would take its own course.
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The petitioners may approach the concerned police authorities for protection if they apprehend any threat to their peaceful living
- The Court did not adjudicate upon the validity of the petitioners' marriage
- The order does not obstruct any pending investigation by the police authorities
- The private respondents may move an application for recalling this order if any facts pleaded in the petition are found to be false or forged
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection of Personal Liberty Without Adjudication
The judgment reaffirms that courts can direct police protection for consenting adults living together without adjudicating the validity of their marriage or relationship. This is particularly significant in cases where:
- The parties fear threats from family members
- No criminal proceedings have been initiated against the parties
- The relationship is between consenting majors
Limits of Police Intervention
- No Automatic Coercive Action: Police cannot adopt coercive measures against consenting adults merely because their relationship is opposed by family members
- Investigation Not Barred: The judgment clarifies that protection orders do not prevent police from investigating if a cognizable offence is reported
Burden on Private Respondents
- Recourse for False Claims: Private respondents can challenge the protection order if the facts pleaded in the petition are found to be false or fabricated
- This ensures that protection orders are not misused to shield unlawful activities
