Consent of family or community ‘not necessary’ when two consenting adults enter into wedlock: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Justice MA Chowdhary of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently observed that when two adults consensually choose each other as their life partners, it is a manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Consent of family or community or clan is ‘not necessary’ once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their ‘consent’ has to be piously given primacy, said the single judge bench.

High Court has further observed that such a right needs to be protected and cannot be let go for conception of ‘class honor’ or ‘group thinking’.

These observations came to be made by the High Court while hearing a petition filed by a major couple, who had married in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law against the wishes of their parents and relatives. They had sought for protection apprehending a threat from relatives. 

High Court, on hearing their contentions, observed that Constitutional Courts must zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual as the dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty.

It is clear that life and liberty without dignity is against the constitutional guarantees of a person's identity, said the Court while adding that no one should be permitted to interfere with an individual's choice. 

“If the right to express one’s own choice is obstructed, then it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness", the bench said.

Furthermore, the bench remarked that when two adults marry each other by free will, consummate their relationship, they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so.

The court concluded that any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation.

Accordingly, while disposing of the petition, the concerned authorities were directed to provide adequate security cover to the couple.

Case Title: Kalsum Bano vs. Union Territory of J&K