The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the right to choose a life partner is an intrinsic part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In a decisive ruling, the Court directed state authorities to protect a major couple from familial interference, emphasizing that parental disapproval cannot justify harassment or threats. The judgment reinforces judicial precedent that adult autonomy in marriage is non-negotiable in a democratic society.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Vaghela Mahek Rajesh Bhai (Petitioner No.1) and her husband (Petitioner No.2), are adult individuals who married each other of their own free will on 06.04.2026 at an Arya Samaj mandir in Sector-H, Harsh Vihar Puraniya, Aliganj, Lucknow. The marriage was solemnized in accordance with Arya Samaj rites and documented through a marriage certificate (Annexure No.1). The petitioners allege that the fourth respondent, identified as a family member, disapproves of the marriage and is actively obstructing their marital life through threats and intimidation. No First Information Report has been registered against either petitioner.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No.1 was born on 08.04.2006 and completed her High School Examination in 2021 (Annexure No.3)
- Petitioner No.2 was born on 20.09.2004 and completed his High School Examination in 2020 (Annexure No.4)
- Both petitioners are above the age of 18 at the time of marriage on 06.04.2026
- The marriage certificate (Annexure No.1) was submitted to the Court as proof of solemnization
- No criminal complaint or FIR has been lodged against the petitioners
- The fourth respondent, though named, was not served notice due to lack of specific allegations against him
Procedural History
- 06.04.2026: Marriage solemnized at Arya Samaj mandir, Lucknow
- 2026: Writ Petition No. 3993 of 2026 filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
- 29.04.2026: Hearing conducted before Division Bench of Justices Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Zafeer Ahmad
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State and its officers to:
- Refrain from interfering in their marital life
- Provide protection against threats or harassment from family members
- Ensure their right to live together in dignity under Article 21
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right of major individuals to marry of their own volition, and whether state authorities are obligated to intervene against familial harassment in such cases, even in the absence of a registered FIR.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the binding precedent in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., 2006 (5) SCC 475, to argue that adult individuals possess an absolute right to choose their life partners. He submitted that parental or familial disapproval, however strong, cannot justify threats, intimidation, or interference in the couple’s peaceful cohabitation. He emphasized that the petitioners are both above the age of majority and that no criminal complaint has been filed, making any interference unlawful. He further contended that the State’s duty to protect fundamental rights arises even without a formal complaint.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Advocate conceded that he had no instructions regarding the registration of any FIR and did not oppose the petition on substantive grounds. He did not dispute the petitioners’ age or the validity of the marriage certificate, and did not contest the applicability of Lata Singh.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the principles laid down in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., particularly paragraph 17, which unequivocally states that in a free and democratic society, a major individual has the right to marry whomever they choose. The Court observed that parental disapproval, however culturally entrenched, cannot translate into actionable harassment or violence. The Court noted that the State’s obligation under Article 21 is not contingent upon the filing of an FIR; the mere threat of interference by family members constitutes a violation of personal liberty.
"This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage."
The Court further held that while it did not adjudicate the veracity of the marriage certificate or the petitioners’ age, the documents submitted prima facie established majority and voluntary union. The Court emphasized that the State’s duty to protect fundamental rights is proactive, not reactive. The absence of an FIR does not absolve the State from its constitutional obligation to prevent unlawful interference.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court directed the State and its officers not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners in any manner. The petitioners are required to register their marriage under the Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017 within two months from the date of judgment. Failure to do so will result in the automatic vacation of this order. The Registrar of Marriages concerned is directed to process and issue the registration certificate at the earliest. The Court clarified that if any FIR has already been registered on the same subject, this order shall stand discharged.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Is Not Dependent on FIR
- Practitioners must argue that Article 21 imposes a proactive duty on the State to protect couples from familial harassment, even without a criminal complaint
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable to prevent anticipated violations of personal liberty
- Police cannot refuse to act merely because no FIR exists; threats alone trigger constitutional obligations
Marriage Registration Is a Condition Precedent to Relief
- Courts may now conditionally grant protection pending marriage registration under state rules
- Failure to comply within the stipulated period (here, two months) will nullify judicial orders
- Legal advisors must advise clients to initiate registration immediately after marriage, regardless of court orders
Judicial Restraint on Validity of Marriage
- Courts will not examine the validity of marriage ceremonies or age claims unless challenged by credible evidence
- Documentary proof of age and solemnization suffices for interim protection
- Petitioners should always annex school certificates, marriage certificates, and identity documents to strengthen prima facie claims
