Valentine's Day Special | How Indian Courts Have Been Protecting Couples And Their Rights

Love is a construct and feeling that we all are familiar with. It wouldn't be wrong to assume that we have exhibited it for atleast one person in our lifetimes – maybe a parent, a sibling, a friend, a guardian or a romantic partner.

Supreme Court

In X v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. (2024), the Court set at liberty a 25-year-old woman who was illegally detained by her parents after learning of her relationship with a man. The woman's partner had approached the Court with a habeas corpus plea to effectuate her release from her family's custody. Allegedly, she had been brought by her family from Dubai, where she was residing with the man and working. On being brought to India, the woman's devices, passport and other belongings were taken away by her family, who apparently also forced her to enter into an arranged marriage. Allowing the woman to return with her partner, the Supreme Court criticized the concerned High Court for delaying the relief.

In a 2023 case, the Court granted bail to a man in an inter-faith relationship, who was in custody for over nine months in a case filed by the woman's parents alleging rape and kidnapping. It was noted that on an earlier occasion, the couple had filed a joint petition for police protection.

In CISF and Others v. Santosh Kumar Pandey (2022), while upholding the dismissal of a CISF personnel who was found to have harassed a couple at night, the Court observed that police officers are not required to do "moral policing". Allegedly, the officer had intercepted a colleague and his fiancée, who were proceeding to watch a Garba performance, and asked if he "could spend some time" with the fiancée. He further demanded something in return for allowing the couple to pass, which led the colleague to give his watch.

In Gurwinder Singh & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (2021), protection was granted to a couple that was denied relief by the concerned High Court with an observation that live-in relationships are morally and socially unacceptable. The Court directed Punjab police to act expeditiously in the matter as it concerned life and liberty of the couple.

Allahabad High Court

In Razia and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (2023), the Court protected rights of an inter-religion couple to stay in a live-in relationship and shielded them from parental influence/threats. To quote the Bench, "a boy or girl, who have attained majority, is free to marry or live with a person of his/her choice and no one including his/her parents or anyone on their behalf can interfere in their right to freedom of choosing a partner which emanates from Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

In Sandeep Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. And 9 Others (2022), the Court observed that "the choice of a life partner, the desire for personal intimacy, and the yearning to find love and fulfillment in a human relationship between two consenting adults cannot be interfered with by any other person". The observation came in a habeas corpus plea filed by a husband, alleging that his wife had been forcibly taken away by her family. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed the wife to go with her husband.

Delhi High Court

In Arif Khan v. The State and Anr. (2024), the Court observed that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minor(s) on the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigors of law or State action. It quashed a kidnapping and rape case registered against the accused-boy who eloped with a minor girl and solemnized marriage. Notably, when the girl was recovered, she was 5 months pregnant and refused to abort the child stating that it was born out of her marital union and love for her husband. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings to do "real justice", keeping in mind the peculiar facts of the case and the future of the two daughters shared by the couple.

In a 2023 case, the Court took strong note of allegations of UP Police detaining and taking away a married young couple from their residence in the national capital to Ghaziabad, without intimating the Delhi police. It directed for the CCTV footage of the "operations" to be filed, so that whoever entered/exited the couple's premises on the night of the incident could be identified.

In Mahesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), it was said that “adolescent love” cannot be controlled by courts and judges have to be careful while rejecting or granting bail in alleged kidnapping/rape cases depending on facts and circumstances. Granting relief of bail to a 19-year-old boy in an FIR registered by a girl's family under Sections 363/376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, the Bench observed that the girl consistently stated that she had gone with the boy out of her own free will as she developed a liking for him. Citing a note of caution, it was opined that in cases of such nature, courts are not dealing with criminals, but with two teenage individuals who want to live their life as they deem fit being in love.

In Smt. Deepali & Anr. v. State (2023), police protection was granted to a couple who got married against parents' wishes. It was said that where parties are major, their right to marry a person of choice is protected under the Constitution of India and even family members cannot object to such relationship.

In Farheen Saini & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors (2022), police protection was granted to an inter-faith couple that was apprehending honor killing at the hands of the woman's family, after observing that their constitutional right to life and liberty was under threat. The man (24) and the woman (26) were in a love affair for some time. As her family beat her and intended to get her married to a Muslim man, the woman left her house to join the company of her partner. She was converted to Hindu religion and thereafter the two got married as per Hindu rites. When the woman's family was informed of the marriage, the couple started getting kill threats.

In Teenu & Anr v. Gnctd (2021), the Court pulled up UP Police for arresting father and brother of a man, who got married to a woman against her family's wishes, without informing the Delhi Police. The couple claimed that they were getting repeated threats from the woman's family. Noting that the woman was major, the Court slammed UP police for not verifying her age before making arrests. 

In Dhanak of Humanity & Ors v. GNCTD & Ors. (2021), police authorities were directed to provide adequate security to a LGBTQ couple facing threat from family members. The Court also instructed that the couple be shifted to a safe house set up by the Delhi Government. Reportedly, the couple in this case had come from Punjab to Delhi to solemnize marriage.

Kerala High Court

In Afeefa C.S & Anr v. Director General of Police & Ors. (2023), an interim order was passed granting police protection to a lesbian couple who alleged that they were being targeted by their parents and henchmen.  Reportedly, the couple had been friends since early school days and fallen in love with each other in Class 12.

In Adhila v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. (2022), the Court reunited a lesbian couple that was forcibly separated by the respective families. Reportedly, the two women had been in a relationship for over 4 years. When they came out to their parents, both the families objected. The family members were  verbally and physically abusive towards the couple, coercing them to end the relationship. Allegedly, one of the two women was even subjected to illegal conversion therapy; appearing before the Court, she expressed a desire to go with her lesbian partner. The Court allowed the same.

Punjab and Haryana High Court

In Pardeep Kumar v. UOI & Ors (2023), the Court upheld the disciplinary punishment of stopping 15 annual increments given to a Police Constable for harassing and taking illegal gratification from a couple, during patrolling duty at night. Allegedly, the Constable had misbehaved with the woman, who was travelling with her male friend at 2 AM, and taken Rs. 300 from them.

In X v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2023), it was clarified that being below marriageable age does not deprive a live-in couple from fundamental right to protection, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court was dealing with a protection plea filed by a live-in couple, wherein the boy was major, but not of marriageable age. The couple had been living together for couple of days and intended to marry when the boy attained marriageable age, however, the parents of the girl were opposed to the marriage. Reportedly, they were moving around in constant fear of being caught.

In Pooja and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (2023), while granting protection to a lesbian couple, the Court observed that Article 21 of the Constitution does not cease if people of same sex decide to live together. To quote the Bench, "Love, attraction, and fondness have no boundaries, and not even the boundary of gender. However, some segments of societies cannot keep pace with the boldness of expression, courage not to be subservient, and the rapidly changing ethos and lifestyles that Gen-Z and millennials might like to embrace or follow, including openly proclaiming their attraction towards persons of similar gender".

In Vikram Kumar & Ors. v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and others (2023), relief was granted to a live-in couple, wherein the girl was a minor, without commenting on the legality of the relationship. The girl (16) and the boy (19) had moved the Court expressing a desire to get married against the wishes of their parents and seeking police protection based on perception of threats from them. "Mere fact that the petitioners are not of marriageable age or that petitioner No.2 is still a minor, would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution, being citizens of India", the Court had said.

In Soniya and another v. State of Haryana and others (2021), it was observed that a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence. After hearing the couple's plea for protection, and taking into account the prevalence of honor killings in northern India, the Court directed that the couple be granted protection if there is perceived threat. It further said, "Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence."

Laudable on most aspects, these cases seem to re-instill a sense of confidence in the system insofar as people's right to be with a person they love is concerned. However, it is worthwhile to clarify that notwithstanding a claim of love affair, courts are not open to granting relief to people who approach them with malintent, suppressing material facts.

The above-mentioned precedents are not courts' way of endorsing just any love relationship - much less between minor persons. The idea is to protect every person's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and the bundle of rights that flow from it. Any threat to life and liberty, in violation of law, is intolerable for courts, but that shall not give way to exploitation of recourse available.

One may not lose sight of the fact that while Courts have sided with couples in certain cases, there are also judicial decisions that declined reliefs (by distinguishing the particular case or simply on a different view). Some of these are outlined below.

In Nikita @ Najrana and Another v. State of UP and 3 Others (2024), while hearing a protection plea filed by an interfaith couple claiming to be married, the Allahabad High Court held that no sanctity can be attached to an interfaith/inter-religious marriage which has been performed without compliance of Sections 8 and 9 (dealing with pre and post conversion formalities) of the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

In Suneeta And Another v. State Of U P And 3 Others (2023), the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by a married woman and her live-in partner, seeking police protection on the ground that her husband was endangering their peaceful lives. It was observed that "live-in relationship cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this country".

In Radhika And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others (2023), the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple for police protection, observing "it is more of infatuation against opposite sex without any sincerity...Our experience shows, that such type of relationship often result into timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation."

In Shobha and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2022), the Rajasthan High Court denied police protection to a runaway couple apprehending threat from their families, observing that there was no material or reason to conclude that the couple's life and liberty were at peril. "If the petitioners have decided to marry, they must muster the audacity and possess tenacity to face and to persuade the society and their family to accept the step they have taken", the Court said.

In Ujjawal and another v. State of Haryana and others (2021), the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to grant protection to a live-in couple who allegedly faced threats from the girl's family since their elopement while noting that "if such protection as claimed is granted, the entire social fabric of the society would get disturbed."

In Moyna Khatun and another v. State of Punjab and others (2021), the Punjab and Haryana High Court was hearing protection plea of a couple that had executed a Live-In Deed. The said deed specifically stated that the live-in-relationship was not a 'Marital Relationship'. The Court rejected the plea, noting that the couple was not of marriageable age at the time of execution of the deed and that the prayer sought was a misuse of process of law as it could not be morally accepted.