Marrying Person Of One's Choice Is A Fundamental Right, No One Can Interfere With Marriage Preferences Of Adults: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that the right to marry a person of one's own wish is a fundamental right.

The development came while hearing a protection plea of a couple who stated to have legally married each other and apprehended threats from their relatives.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari observed, “To marry a person of one's own choice, is the fundamental right of every citizen. No one is bestowed with any right or authority to interfere in the marriage preferences of independent adults.”

The Court added that had the authorities concerned, which was seized of petitioners' representation, handled the matter with due care and circumspection, the petitioners would not have been constrained to approach this Court.

The protection plea was filed against the State of Punjab and other respondents by a couple apprehending danger to their life and liberty as their marriage had given rise to grievances among their families.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the principal cause behind filing the plea was that their marriage had caused grievance to their family members and such grievance had made them apprehensive of danger to their lives and liberty. Before rushing to the Court, the petitioners had even made a representation before Police authorities.

Justice Tiwari observed that, the “Court is unable to comprehend as to how two mature, responsible and consenting adults, who have decided to spend their lives together, and that too after legally solemnizing marriage, are not allowed to live a peaceful life as per their own wishes.”

“Had the authorities concerned, which was seized of petitioners' representation (supra), handled the matter with due care and circumspection, the petitioners would not have been constrained to approach this Court,” the judge added.

Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's decision, in “Laxmibai Chandaragi B & Anr. V/s The State of Karnataka & Ors.”, [Writ Petition (Criminal) No.359/2020],  to underscore that “consent of family, community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock.”

The Court highlighted that despite the issuance of detailed guidelines, in numerous judgments, by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the petitioners had to approach the Court for issuance of a mandamus upon the authority concerned to act upon their representation.

Without entering upon an exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on the file, the Court disposed of the plea directing to Commissioner of Police to decided the representation and grant protection if any threat to their lives and liberty is perceived.

Ms. Sunita Devi Spehia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.

Case Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 229