Family Disapproval Can’t Curtail Adults’ Right to Marry, Rules Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently observed that the choice of two consenting adults to be life partners and live together in peace is part of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity under Article 21, and cannot be curtailed by family disapproval.

In a detailed order, Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “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".

Emphasising the Supreme Court’s stance, Justice Narula said, "The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this position and directed the police to safeguard such couples from intimidation or harm".

Court accordingly granted police protection to a young couple who had lawfully solemnised their marriage and sought the court’s intervention to ensure their safety and protect their right to live together in peace. The petitioners approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after facing threats, coercion, and interference from family members opposed to their union.

The couple, having attained the age of majority, had solemnised their marriage on 23 July 2025 of their own free will and volition, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, at the Arya Samaj Sanatan Vaidik Sanskar Trust, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. In support of their marriage, they placed relevant documents on record.

They contended that the woman’s legal guardian and mother had strongly objected to their relationship and allegedly issued repeated threats of physical harm, particularly targeting the woman. Confronted with persistent hostility and fearing for her safety, she left her parental home on 18 July 2025, after duly informing her mother of her intention to marry the man.

The couple further alleged that despite their marriage, the woman’s family continued to threaten and intimidate them. They claimed to have received threatening messages, phone calls, and video calls, some allegedly made by or at the behest of police officials from P.S. Neb Sarai. They also expressed apprehension that false complaints might have been lodged to harass them and disrupt their peaceful cohabitation.

After hearing the parties at length, the court perused a status report, which revealed that the woman’s family had lodged a complaint regarding her alleged disappearance, resulting in the registration of DD Entry No. 55A dated 19 July 2025 at P.S. Neb Sarai.

However, court recorded that the woman had categorically confirmed she voluntarily married her partner and left her parental home of her own accord. After confirming, the missing person inquiry was closed by the police, and this closure was communicated to woman's family.

Court held, “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".

Regarding the couple’s apprehension of threats, court directed, “The SHO of the concerned police station shall designate a beat officer, sensitise him/her to the present order, and furnish to the Petitioners the mobile numbers of the beat officer and the station’s 24×7 contact. Upon any complaint of threat, the police shall promptly enter a DD entry and extend immediate assistance. For coordination, counsel for the Petitioners shall share their current place of residence and contact details with the Investigating Officer today itself".

Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations against the woman’s family and said, “Since notice has not been issued to them and they have not been heard at this stage, all rights and contentions of the parties are left expressly open to be agitated before the appropriate forum in accordance with law".

It added, “The directions issued herein, particularly those concerning police protection, are purely preventive in nature, aimed at ensuring the Petitioners’ safety and safeguarding their right to life and liberty. They shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the truthfulness of the Petitioners’ claims, nor as any endorsement thereof".

With these directions, court disposed of the petition.

Case Title: PRINCE TYAGI AND ANR versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS

Order Date: 5 August 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula