In a significant affirmation of personal liberty, the Allahabad High Court has directed state authorities to provide police protection to an inter-caste married couple facing harassment from family members. The judgment reinforces the Supreme Court's holding in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., mandating that police must prevent threats or violence against couples who marry by free will, regardless of caste or religion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Radha and another (names not fully disclosed), approached the Allahabad High Court seeking police protection after marrying each other of their own free will on 20.05.2026. The marriage took place at Mankameshwar Hanuman Mandir, Surendra Nagar, Lucknow. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 4 (likely a family member) was creating hindrances and disturbing their matrimonial life with the help of local police authorities.
Key Facts
- The petitioners are majors and married on 20.05.2026
- Documentary evidence submitted includes:
- School Leaving Certificate and Aadhar Card of Petitioner No. 1 (Annexure 1)
- Aadhar Card and PAN Card of Petitioner No. 2 (Annexure 2)
- Marriage certificate and photographs (Annexure 3)
- No First Information Report (FIR) had been lodged against the petitioners at the time of filing
- The petitioners claimed to be living a peaceful matrimonial life but faced harassment from Respondent No. 4
Procedural History
- Date of Marriage: 20.05.2026
- Date of Filing: The instant writ petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5573 of 2026) was filed seeking police protection
- Hearing Date: The matter was heard on 15.06.2026
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought the following reliefs:
- A: A writ of mandamus directing Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 (state authorities) to provide immediate and adequate police protection
- B: A writ of mandamus directing Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3 to ensure that Opposite Party No. 4 does not threaten, harm, harass, or intimidate the petitioners
- C: Any other orders deemed just and proper to ensure fair investigation into the matter
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether state authorities are obligated to provide police protection to a couple who married by free will, particularly in cases involving inter-caste or inter-religious marriages, where the couple faces harassment or threats from family members or others.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (5) SCC 475, specifically paragraph 17, which directs police authorities to ensure that couples who marry by free will are not harassed or subjected to violence. The counsel argued that the petitioners, being majors and having married of their own accord, were entitled to protection under the law.
For the Respondent/State
The learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State-respondents did not contest the petitioners' claim for protection. The State's role was limited to ensuring compliance with the Court's directions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioners had submitted sufficient documentary evidence to establish their marriage and majority status. Relying on the precedent set in Lata Singh, the Court emphasized that personal liberty and the right to marry are fundamental rights protected under the Constitution. The judgment in Lata Singh explicitly directs police authorities to prevent harassment or violence against couples who marry by free will, regardless of caste or religion.
The Court noted:
"We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a women or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."
The Court disposed of the petition with directions to the respondents, clarifying that the order would stand discharged if any FIR was already registered against the petitioners. The Court also explicitly stated that it had not adjudicated the validity of the marriage or the age of the petitioners, leaving those questions open for any future proceedings.
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The respondents (state authorities) were directed not to interfere in the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner
- The order is subject to any FIR already registered against the petitioners, in which case the order would automatically stand discharged
- The order is also subject to any other legal proceedings initiated against the petitioners
- The Court did not examine the validity of the marriage or the age of the petitioners
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Protection Is a Mandatory Duty
This judgment reinforces that police authorities have a non-negotiable duty to protect couples who marry by free will, particularly in inter-caste or inter-religious marriages. Practitioners can rely on this judgment to:
- Seek immediate police protection for couples facing harassment or threats from family members or others
- Argue that gravity of societal opposition cannot override the right to personal liberty
- Demand stern action against those who harass or threaten such couples, as directed in Lata Singh
Limits of Judicial Intervention
- The Court did not adjudicate the validity of the marriage or the age of the petitioners, leaving these questions open for future proceedings. This implies that while police protection is mandated, other legal issues (e.g., validity of marriage, age disputes) may still be contested in separate proceedings
- The order is subject to any FIR already registered against the petitioners, meaning that the protection granted is not absolute and may be revoked if criminal proceedings are initiated
Precedent for Future Cases
- This judgment serves as a strong precedent for couples seeking police protection in similar circumstances
- It underscores the binding nature of the Lata Singh judgment, which has been consistently relied upon by courts across India to protect personal liberty in marriage-related disputes
- Practitioners can cite this judgment to challenge any inaction or negligence by police authorities in providing protection to couples facing harassment
