Right To Life Must Be Protected Regardless Of Validity Of Marriage: Rajasthan HC Grants Protection To Couple Of Non-Marriageable Age

Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the supremacy of fundamental rights seeking protection of life and liberty irrespective of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga directed the police to grant protection to a major couple, not of marriageable age, facing threats from family and held that regardless of whether a citizen was a minor or a major, it was the constitutional obligation of the State to treat right to human life on a much higher pedestal.

The Court was hearing a petition seeking protection by a couple wherein the girl was 20 years old and the boy was 19 years of age. They had been living in a live-in relationship for the past few days and intended to get married upon attaining the marriageable age as per law. However, they were being threatened with being killed by the girl's parents who wanted her to get married to some other boy.

It was contended by the petitioners that they had approached the police authorities seeking safeguard their life, however, no actions were being taken. It was further submitted that the petitioners were running from one place to another since they were not able to find a safe place to live. Hence, the present petition was filed.

While highlighting the sacrosanct nature of the constitutional fundamental right under Article 21, the Court opined that the issue was not regarding the marriage of the petitioners but the fundamental right. It was held:

“I have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties… Mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their fundamental right, as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India.”

Furthermore, the Court also referred to a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Seema Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others in which it was held that marriage was not a must for security to be provided to a runaway couple. The case highlighted the opinion of the Supreme Court that the right to exercise assertion of choice was an inseparable part of liberty and dignity and once a major had chosen his/her life partner, it was not for anyone, be it their family members, to cause hindrance in their peaceful existence. Hence, it was the State's duty to ensure their protection and personal liberty.

The Court while rendering complete agreement with the observations in the case, held that it was the bounden Constitutional duty of the State to protect the life and liberty of every citizen.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the superintendent of police was directed to verify the perception of threat of the petitioners and provide necessary protection.

Title: Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 227

Click Here To Read/Download Order