Article 21 Prevails Over Marriage Validity Disputes: Allahabad HC Grants Protection to Couple

The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected irrespective of disputes surrounding the validity of a marriage, while granting protection to a couple who claimed threats from family members after solemnising a marriage despite the male partner not having attained the statutory marriageable age.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh allowed the writ petition and disposed of it with directions that the couple would be free to live together and that no person should interfere in their peaceful living. The Court further directed that if any disturbance is caused, the petitioners may approach the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police, who must examine the matter and provide immediate protection.

The Court, however, clarified that it had not adjudicated upon the validity of the marriage and that protection would cease if the marriage was not registered within two months in accordance with the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017.

The case arose from a writ petition seeking protection of life and liberty. The couple claimed to be majors who had solemnised their marriage out of their own free will but were facing harassment, particularly from the woman’s father.

The petition was framed as one seeking a mandamus directing authorities not to interfere in their peaceful marital life and to ensure protection against threats.

Before the Court, the State opposed the plea by arguing that the marriage was void, relying on provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It was contended that since the male partner had not attained the age of 21 years, he would fall within the definition of a “child” under the statute, rendering the marriage either void or voidable.

The Court, however, undertook an examination of Sections 3 and 12 of the 2006 Act. It noted that under Section 3, a child marriage is voidable at the instance of the contracting party who was a child at the time of marriage, subject to limitation conditions. Section 12, in contrast, renders a child marriage void only in specific aggravated circumstances such as enticement from lawful guardianship, force, trafficking, or sale for marriage.

Relying on precedents, the Court observed that marriages involving a party below the statutory marriageable age are not automatically void. At best, such marriages may be voidable at the option of the minor contracting party, unless the stringent conditions of Section 12 are satisfied.

The Court also noted Supreme Court observations recognising that even where parties may not be legally competent to solemnise a marriage, they retain the right to live together, and live-in relationships are legally recognised under statutory frameworks such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Significantly, the Court emphasised that the present proceedings were not meant to determine the validity of the marriage but to address apprehensions relating to threats to life and liberty. It held that constitutional protection under Article 21 stands on a higher pedestal and must be safeguarded regardless of disputes relating to the legality of marital status.

The judgment further stressed the State’s constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. It held that the fact that one partner had not attained the marriageable age could not deprive him of his fundamental rights as a citizen.

The Court also referred to landmark Supreme Court rulings condemning honour-based violence and harassment of consenting couples, reiterating that families cannot resort to threats or coercion merely because they disapprove of a relationship or marriage.

While granting relief, the Court balanced competing considerations by imposing safeguards. It directed registration of the marriage within two months and clarified that its order did not validate the marriage, nor would it bar lawful proceedings or investigations. It also allowed liberty to aggrieved parties to seek recall of the order if obtained through suppression or false statements.

Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition while reiterating that protection orders in such cases are limited to safeguarding fundamental rights and cannot be read as judicial endorsement of the legality or validity of the marital relationship.

Case Title: Smt. Varsha and Anr. v. State of UP & 2 Ors.

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh

Date of judgment: 16.01.2026