The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that adult individuals who marry consensually against familial opposition are entitled to immediate protection of their lives and personal liberty under Article 226 of the Constitution. This order underscores the primacy of individual autonomy in personal choices, even amid societal or familial resistance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Kaju and Aman Kumar, aged 24 and 21 years respectively, approached the High Court seeking protection from threats to their lives and personal liberty arising from their marriage, which was solemnized against the wishes of their parents. The petitioners allege that they face imminent danger of being falsely implicated in criminal cases and subjected to violence or coercion by private respondents, specifically respondents No. 4 and 5, who are family members.
Key Facts
- The petitioners are both major adults, with ages of 24 and 21 years as per their Aadhaar cards (Annexure P-1 and P-2)
- Their marriage was solemnized on 22.04.2026 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals
- A certified copy of the Marriage Certificate (Annexure P-4) was submitted to the Court
- On 29.04.2026, the petitioners submitted a written representation (Annexure P-8) to the Superintendent of Police, District Hisar, seeking police protection
- The representation detailed threats received from family members and requested intervention to prevent harassment or false criminal cases
- No criminal case had been registered against the petitioners at the time of filing the petition
Procedural History
- 22.04.2026: Marriage solemnized under Hindu rites
- 29.04.2026: Representation submitted to Superintendent of Police, District Hisar
- 04.05.2026: Writ Petition CRWP-5153-2026 filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Article 226
- 04.05.2026: Court heard arguments and disposed of the petition on the same day
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Immediate protection of their lives and personal liberty
- Direction to the police to prevent harassment or false implication in criminal cases
- Examination of their representation dated 29.04.2026 and appropriate action thereon
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether adult petitioners who have lawfully married against parental wishes are entitled to immediate protection under Article 226 of the Constitution when they face credible threats to their life and liberty, even in the absence of a registered criminal case.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the petitioners’ age, the validity of their marriage under Hindu law, and the existence of a documented threat through the representation dated 29.04.2026. He emphasized that the petitioners’ right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to choose a life partner and that the State has a positive obligation to protect individuals from extralegal threats, even from private actors. He cited Shakti Vahini v. Union of India to underscore the State’s duty to safeguard inter-faith and inter-caste couples.
For the Respondent
Ms. Chhavi Sharma, Additional Advocate General for Haryana, accepted notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 (State and police authorities). She did not oppose the petition and conceded that if the petitioners are under threat, appropriate protective measures must be taken. She stated that the State has no objection to the Court issuing directions for the protection of the petitioners’ lives and liberty.
The Court's Analysis
The Court explicitly declined to examine the legality or validity of the marriage, noting that the petitioners are adults and the marriage was solemnized under recognized religious rites. The Court emphasized that the petition’s core concern was not marital validity but the threat to life and liberty.
"The present petition is being disposed of without examining the question of legality and validity of the marriage and expressing any opinion thereon with a direction to the respondent No.3-Station House Officer, Police Station Mandi Adampur, District Hisar, Haryana, to look into the grievances of the petitioners as set out in the petition and also expressed in the representation dated 29.04.2026 (Annexure P-8) and take appropriate action for protection of their lives and liberty as may be warranted by the circumstances."
The Court recognized that the petitioners’ apprehension of harm, supported by a formal representation to the police, triggered the State’s duty under Article 21 to prevent harm, even in the absence of a registered FIR. The Court distinguished this from a dispute over marital validity and treated it as a clear case of imminent threat to personal security.
The Court also clarified that its order does not preclude lawful police action if a criminal case is or becomes registered, ensuring that the protection granted does not obstruct due process.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Mandi Adampur, District Hisar, to examine the petitioners’ grievances and their representation dated 29.04.2026 and take appropriate action to protect their lives and liberty. The Registry was directed to send a copy of the petition and the representation to the Station House Officer for compliance. The Court clarified that this order does not bar lawful police action if a criminal case is registered against the petitioners.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Must Act on Credible Threats, Even Without FIR
- Practitioners can now invoke Article 226 to seek immediate police protection for adult couples facing threats due to inter-family marriage disputes
- A written representation to police, even without an FIR, constitutes sufficient grounds for judicial intervention under Article 21
- Courts will not require proof of actual violence - credible apprehension supported by documentation is sufficient
Autonomy of Adult Choice Is Constitutionally Protected
- The Court’s refusal to adjudicate marital validity reinforces that consent and age are decisive, not parental approval or social norms
- This aligns with Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M., affirming that personal autonomy in marriage is a fundamental right
- Legal aid organizations should proactively advise couples in similar situations to file representations and seek writ relief without delay
State’s Duty Is Proactive, Not Reactive
- The State cannot wait for a crime to occur before acting
- The duty to protect under Article 21 includes preventive measures such as surveillance, safe housing, or police escort
- Failure to act on such representations may expose authorities to liability for violation of fundamental rights
