Article 21 Rights Protect Couples Even in Void, Invalid, or No Nikah Cases: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme, must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or a void marriage/nikah or even the absence of any marriage/nikah between the parties.

Court held that the right to life and personal liberty of two consenting adults could not be denied merely because the validity of their nikah was disputed, while granting protection to a Muslim couple who alleged threats from the woman’s family.

Also Read | Muslim Personal Law Allows Marriage Upon Puberty, Not Live-In Relationships: Allahabad High Court

The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by a couple seeking directions to restrain interference in their peaceful married life by the woman’s father and relatives. Court clarified that it was not adjudicating upon the legality or genuineness of the nikah, but only examining the issue of protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

According to the petition, the woman, born on October 22, 2003, and the man, born on May 3, 1999, had solemnised nikah on April 24, 2025, of their own free will. They claimed that despite both being majors, the woman’s family members were harassing them and obstructing their peaceful life together. The couple also stated that they had sought police protection earlier and had applied online for registration of their marriage.

The plea was strongly opposed by the woman’s father and the State authorities, who contended that the nikah was not valid since the woman was not even in India on the date of marriage. Relying on passport records, they informed the court that she had been in Dubai between January 23, 2025 and May 21, 2025. The State further submitted that although witnesses admitted that the nikah was conducted through video conferencing, the authenticity of the video interaction had not been verified.

Also Read| Religious Tenets Forbid Live-in Relationships for Muslims with Living Spouses: Allahabad HC

Appearing before the court personally, the woman admitted that she was in Dubai at the time of nikah and that she later signed the nikahnama after returning to India. She nevertheless maintained that she had voluntarily entered into the relationship and apprehended danger to her life from her father and his associates. She also alleged that attempts had been made to stop her outside the court premises.

Court observed that both petitioners were majors and competent to take decisions of their own free will. It held that even if the nikah was ultimately found invalid, the couple’s fundamental rights could not be denied.

“Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal,” the court said, adding that such protection must continue regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or a void marriage/nikah.

Also Read| Hindu-Muslim Couple Used Live-in to Evade Conversion Law: Allahabad HC

Justice Singh relied extensively on several Supreme Court decisions recognising the autonomy of consenting adults to choose their partners, including Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas, Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

Court reiterated that the right to choose a life partner irrespective of caste, creed or religion is an intrinsic part of Article 21 and that neither the State nor society can dictate personal choices of consenting adults.

Disposing of the petition, court directed that the couple would be free to live together and that no person should interfere in their peaceful living. It further ordered that if any disturbance was caused, the petitioners could approach the Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police concerned for immediate protection.

Case Title: Smt. Sidra Parveen And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Order Date: May 14, 2026

Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh