Read Time: 04 minutes
Right to choose partner has sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class, honour or group thinking
In a significant judgment reaffirming individual liberty and constitutional rights, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on April 16 directed the police to provide protection to a couple who married against their families’ wishes and feared retaliation.
Court underscored that the choice of a life partner by consenting adults is a manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
"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," court said.
The bench Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while hearing a petition filed by Anamika Devi and her husband, noted that both individuals were majors and had entered into marriage of their own free will on March 26, 2025, in accordance with Hindu rites. The couple approached the court citing imminent threats of physical violence and harassment from their relatives due to their inter-familial marriage.
Observing that such consensual unions deserve constitutional protection, the court held that neither family approval nor societal endorsement is necessary once two consenting adults decide to marry.
“The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity,” Justice Nargal observed, adding that liberty without dignity and choice would reduce the constitutional identity of an individual to mere hollowness. He further stated that “no one shall be permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice,” terming any such obstruction a violation of constitutional rights.
Citing landmark judgments such as Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, the court directed the authorities to ensure the couple’s safety, subject to verification of their age and the legality of their marriage. It also allowed the police to continue any lawful investigation if an FIR existed against either of the petitioners.
Importantly, the court clarified that the current order does not validate the marriage or confirm the petitioners’ age or majority. These aspects, it said, are subject to verification as per prevailing legal standards.
Case Title: Anamika Devi and Another vs. UT of J&K and Others
Please Login or Register
