Bench stresses Article 21 protection for adult autonomy in marital choice while granting police protection to couple threatened by family opposition.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that consenting adults possess an inherent constitutional right to choose their life partners without requiring approval from society or family members, including parents. The Court underscored that such interference, whether social or familial, would infringe on personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee delivered the order on 6 February 2026, in a writ petition filed by a married couple seeking protection from threats posed by the woman’s father, who opposed their union despite their lawful marriage.
Case Title
Laxmi Devi & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., Writ Petition under Article 226.
Background and Legal Issue
The petitioners, both consenting adults, had solemnised their marriage in July 2025 according to Hindu rites at an Arya Samaj temple in Delhi and subsequently registered it with the competent authority. They approached the High Court alleging sustained threats and intimidation from the woman’s father, who opposed their decision to marry.
The couple also withdrew their challenge to coercive action in connection with an FIR that had been lodged against the woman during the proceedings.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether adult individuals must seek societal or parental approval to exercise their right to marry, and the extent to which the State is obligated to protect that right when challenged by familial opposition.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Banerjee emphasised that the right to marry is an incident of personal liberty and is deeply rooted in constitutional jurisprudence under Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty. The judge observed that this right encompasses the freedom of consenting adults to make autonomous decisions about their marital lives without external interference.
The Bench held that neither society at large, nor the State machinery, parents, relatives, or friends can interfere with the personal decisions of adults who choose to marry each other. In the Court’s view, such interference directly impacts their freedom, dignity, and personal choices which are central to their autonomy.
In strong terms, the Court noted: “No person, much less the father of the petitioner, can be allowed to threaten the life and liberty of the petitioners as they do not require any social approval for their personal decisions and choices.”
The judgment drew on established constitutional principles that recognise marriage as a fundamental choice integral to the pursuit of happiness and liberty, forming part of the right to life.
Final Ruling
The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Delhi Police to provide necessary protection to the couple against threats from the woman’s father. The protection includes the couple’s direct access to the Station House Officer and beat officers of the concerned police station if needed.
The Court also clarified that if the couple relocates, they should inform the local police to ensure uninterrupted protection.
Justice Banerjee emphasised that the State’s role is to uphold constitutional rights and protect individuals exercising their freedoms, not to mediate familial objections or societal disapproval in consensual adult relationships.
Practical Implications
- Personal Liberty Reinforced: The judgment reinforces that the right to choose one’s life partner is a core element of personal liberty under Article 21, immune from societal and familial veto.
- Limits on Interference: It establishes clear parameters that neither parents nor other private individuals may impede the valid choices of consenting adult couples.
- State Protection Duty: The ruling underscores the State’s duty to ensure protection for individuals whose fundamental liberties are jeopardised by coercive or threatening conduct from others, including family members.
The judgment adds clarity on the extent of constitutional protection accorded to consenting adults in exercising their right to choose life partners and the limited role of external social or familial influence in such personal decisions.
