Consenting adults entitled to choose each other as life partners, live together without fear: Delhi High Court
By upholding the constitutional right of consenting adults to choose their partners in life and to cohabit without interference, the Delhi High Court has directed the police to offer protection to a young married couple who had received threats and harassment from family members who opposed the marriage between the two.The order of 05.08.2025 by Justice Sanjeev Narula stated that family disapproval could not be used to curtail the autonomy, dignity, and personal freedom of two adults who are legally married to each other of their own free will. The Court issued preventative directions to the police to protect the life and well-being of the couple, stating that it was not giving any view on whether the family dispute was merited or not.What Prompted the PetitionThe petition was presented by a couple that recently married and were afraid of being coerced and beaten by the parents of the woman. The couple applied to the High Court to seek protection and restraint against any potential police action on the grounds of complaints reportedly being filed at the behest of the family of the woman.According to the petition, both individuals were majors and had married on 23 July 2025 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs at an Arya Samaj trust in Delhi. Copies of the marriage certificate and age-proof documents were placed on record to establish that the marriage was lawful and voluntary.The woman claimed that her parents were vehemently against the relationship and had made several threats in the past, which caused her to move out of the parental residence on 18 July 2025, having told her mother about her intention to get married. The couple mentioned that even after the marriage, continued intimidation in the form of threatening calls and messages still went on, some of them were routed through the police personnel of the local police station.Police version placed before courtDuring the hearing, the State submitted to the Court a status report that explained that indeed the woman had a missing person complaint lodged by her mother. This resulted in a daily diary entry being recorded at the police station.However, during the inquiry, the Investigating Officer directly approached the woman. She categorically claimed that she had married the petitioner on her own free will and had left her parental home of her own choice. After the marriage certificate was verified and she confirmed the same to the police the missing person inquiry was closed and the parents of her were informed.“Thus, in view of the status report closing the “missing” entry and noting the Petitioners’ voluntary marriage, no further directions are necessary regarding this issue,” the Court said.Court’s View:The High Court after reviewing the material, emphasized the right of two consenting adults to select each other to be life partners, as entrenched in Article 21 of the Constitution, which incorporates personal liberty, privacy and dignity.The Court observed that family opposition, however strong, cannot curtail this autonomy. Referring to consistent Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue, Justice Narula noted that the police are duty-bound to protect such couples from intimidation or harm.“The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.Considering the fact that the missing complaint was closed and the undisputed fact was that the marriage was always voluntary, the Court felt no additional directions were needed on that front. Court Orders Preventive Police ProtectionRegarding the fear that the couple expressed about being threatened, the Court instructed the State to provide sufficient security. The Station House Officer of the police station in question was ordered to appoint a beat officer, sensitize them about the given order, and give the couple direct contact information, i.e. 24 x 7 helpline number of the station.The Court further directed that if any complaint of threat is received, the police must immediately record a daily diary entry and extend prompt assistance. The couple’s counsel was also directed to share their current address and contact details with the Investigating Officer to facilitate coordination.“Upon any complaint of threat, the police shall promptly enter a DD entry and extend immediate assistance. For co- ordination, counsel for the Petitioners shall share the Petitioners’ current place of residence and contact details with the Investigating Officer, today itself,” the Court said disposing of the plea.The directions issued, the Court emphasized, were purely preventive in nature, intended only to protect the couple’s right to life and liberty, and should not be construed as an endorsement of either side’s claims.With these observations and directions, the High Court disposed of the petition.Title: PRINCE TYAGI AND ANR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORSW.P.(CRL) 2419/2025 & CRL.M.A. 22758/2025, CRL.M.A. 22759/2025For Petitioners: Mr. Anjaneya Mishra, Mr. Nidish Gupta, Mr. Sahil and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh Senger and Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Advocates for the State. Insp. Pawan Kumar, HC Rakesh Kumar PS: Neb Sarai.(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
