Threat from father after marriage: Right to marry by choice part of personal liberty, says HC

Reaffirming that the state to take one’s beingness spouse forms a halfway constituent of law liberty, the Delhi High Court granted extortion to an big mates who approached it alleging threats from the woman’s begetter pursuing their marriage.

The Court observed that neither household nor nine tin interfere with the determination of consenting adults and held that the mates was entitled to extortion of beingness and idiosyncratic liberty nether Article 21 of the Constitution.On 03.02.2026, Justice Saurabh Banerjee passed the bid adjudicating a writ petition filed nether Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The petition sought a absorption to constabulary authorities to supply extortion against alleged threats from the woman’s father. The mates did not property a abstracted supplication seeking restraint connected coercive enactment successful transportation with an FIR lodged against them.Background and Petitioners’ CaseThe Counsel of the petitioners informed the Court that the mates were consenting big and they got joined connected 30.07.2025 successful accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies astatine an Arya Samaj temple successful Delhi.

The matrimony was past registered earlier the Sub-Divisional Magistrate successful October 2025.The counsel further informed the Court that the matrimony was solemnized against the wishes of the woman’s father, who thereafter allegedly issued threats. It was further submitted that an FIR had been registered successful Uttar Pradesh against the mates nether Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita owed to the household conflict.Issues Before the CourtThe large question earlier the Court was whether an big mates who were joined legally done prime but faced the absorption of members of the household was entitled to extortion of beingness and liberty from State authorities.Although the facts of the petition were comparatively circumscribed, the Court approached the occupation successful a larger law context, which includes autonomy, dignity, and close to instrumentality a idiosyncratic determination successful the matters relating to marriage.Reasoning of the CourtThe Court placed the quality squarely wrong the model of idiosyncratic liberty nether Article 21. It noted that matrimony is simply a close which flows from quality liberty and idiosyncratic discretion, and it is observed that specified state is not lone indicated by nationalist law rights but besides by principles of quality rights.The bid emphasized:“the right to marry is an incidental of quality liberty and is simply a substance of one’s choice, which is not lone underscored successful the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but is besides an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the close to beingness and gives extortion of beingness and idiosyncratic liberty to each persons similar the petitioners herein whereby it is the inherent close of each idiosyncratic to workout idiosyncratic choices, particularly successful matters relating to marriage. The petitioners herein are good and genuinely entitled for extortion nether Article 21 of The Constitution of India.”The Court acknowledged that the petitioners were adults and had entered into matrimony connected their ain escaped volition and therefore, deserved law extortion and that the involution by the extracurricular enactment could not beryllium justified.To reenforce its reasoning, the High Court invoked established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court affirming autonomy successful marital choice.From Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., the Court reproduced observations stressing the centrality of idiosyncratic liberty:“The close to wed a idiosyncratic of one's prime is integral to Article 21… Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees… is the historical quality of each idiosyncratic to instrumentality decisions connected matters cardinal to the pursuit of happiness… Society has nary relation to play successful determining our prime of partners.”The Court besides referred to Lata Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh that condemned harassment of couples who entered inter-caste oregon inter-religious unions. In that decision, the Supreme Court directed authorities to support specified couples and prosecute those who contented threats:“This is simply a escaped and antiauthoritarian country, and erstwhile a idiosyncratic becomes a major, helium oregon she tin wed whosoever he/she likes… If the parents… bash not approve… the maximum they tin bash is chopped disconnected societal relations… but they cannot springiness threats oregon perpetrate oregon instigate acts of violence.”Using these authorities, the Court placed the existent quality successful the discourse of a law doctrine of marital autonomy.The Court noted that erstwhile adults marque a prime to get married, their prime should beryllium upheld and not interfered with by household members, the nine oregon authorities actors.The bid recorded:“No one, overmuch little the Society, the State machinery oregon adjacent their parents… tin origin interference to the determination of the petitioners…”It further held:“No idiosyncratic overmuch less… the father… tin beryllium allowed to endanger the beingness and liberty of the petitioners… they bash not necessitate immoderate societal support for their idiosyncratic decisions and choices.”Allowing the petition, the Court provided applicable alleviation alternatively than abstract declarations. It directed that the petitioners could interaction specified section constabulary officials whenever indispensable for protection.The Court additionally directed that if the mates shifted residence extracurricular the acrophobic constabulary station’s jurisdiction, they indispensable pass the applicable SHO wrong 3 days, providing updated code details.Authorities were instructed to widen extortion whenever sought, and the petition was disposed of successful those terms.The Delhi High Court yet held that the petitioners, being consenting adults who had lawfully married, were entitled to extortion of beingness and liberty and could question constabulary assistance arsenic needed. The petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of with protective directions.Through this, the Court reaffirmed that the law extortion of idiosyncratic liberty indispensable construe into applicable safeguards erstwhile radical are threatened arsenic a effect of exercising their state to prime their partners.W.P.(CRL) 366/2026, CRL.M.A. 3527/2026LAXMI DEVI & ANR. Vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.For Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Vinod Kumar Verma and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Kshitiz Garg and Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Advocates with SI Pravin Singh, PS: Kanjhawala(Vatsal Chandra is simply a Delhi-based Advocate practicing earlier the courts of Delhi NCR.)