The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that marriage between consenting adults is a constitutional right, not a family-controlled privilege. Parental threats or social pressure cannot override personal liberty under Article 21.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, through Justice Saurabh Banerjee, has once again sent a strong and clear message that marriage is a personal choice and not a matter of family control or social permission.
In an order dated 3 February 2026, the Court granted police protection to a married couple who approached the Court fearing for their lives due to threats from the woman’s father.
The couple filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking protection from life threats. The woman’s father was unhappy with the marriage and allegedly started threatening the couple after they married against his wishes.
The couple informed the Court that they are consenting adults who married on 30 July 2025 as per Hindu rites at an Arya Samaj temple in Delhi. Their marriage was later officially registered before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Despite this, the woman’s father allegedly used pressure and even initiated criminal proceedings as a tool of harassment.
While examining the matter, the Delhi High Court clearly stated that the right to marry is not merely a social right but a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that personal liberty includes the freedom to choose one’s life partner.
The Court reminded that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue in clear terms. Referring to Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M., the Court quoted:
“The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution.”
The Court further highlighted that decisions about love, partnership, and marriage are central to an individual’s identity and happiness. It emphasised that society has no role in deciding who an adult should marry.
The High Court also relied on the landmark judgment of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court had strongly condemned threats and violence against couples marrying by choice. The Court quoted:
“This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes.”
It further reiterated the Supreme Court’s warning that parents may disagree but cannot threaten, harass, or instigate violence against their adult children for marrying by choice.
Applying these settled legal principles, the Delhi High Court made it clear that no person, including parents, relatives, society, or even the State machinery, has the authority to interfere in the marital life of consenting adults. The Court stressed that adults do not require social approval to exercise their constitutional rights.
The Court categorically held that threatening the life and liberty of a married couple is completely illegal and unacceptable. It stated that sanctity must be accorded to the couple’s decision to marry, especially when both are adults acting of their own free will.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed. The Court directed the local police station to provide immediate protection to the couple. It also permitted the couple to directly contact the SHO or beat officers whenever they felt threatened. The Court further clarified that if the couple shifts residence, the local police of the new area must also extend the same protection.
This judgment once again reinforces an important constitutional truth: marriage is a matter of personal liberty, not parental control. For many men and women facing threats, false cases, and social pressure after marriage by choice, this order stands as a strong reminder that the Constitution protects individual freedom over outdated notions of honour and control.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Legal Provisions Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Article 226, Constitution of India | Empowers High Courts to issue writs to protect legal and fundamental rights | The couple approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection from life threats through a writ petition |
| Article 21, Constitution of India | Provides a procedural framework for criminal matters before courts | The Court held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is part of personal liberty and must be protected |
| Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Supreme Court ruling affirming the right to choose life partner | Invoked along with Article 226 while seeking protection under the new criminal procedure regime |
| Section 87, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Penal provision under the new criminal law | FIR was registered under this section by the woman’s father against the petitioners |
| Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368 | Cited to emphasise that adults cannot be threatened or harassed for marrying by choice | Relied upon by the High Court to reinforce that marriage by choice is protected under Article 21 |
| Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475 | Supreme Court ruling condemning harassment of inter-caste/inter-faith couples | Cited to emphasize that adults cannot be threatened or harassed for marrying by choice |
Case Details
- Case Title: Laxmi Devi & Anr. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 366/2026, CRL.M.A. 3527/2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee
- Date of Order: 03 February 2026
- Counsel:
- For Petitioners: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Vinod Kumar Verma, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocates
- For State/Respondents: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for State, Mr. Ashvini Kumar. Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Ms. Chavi Lazarus, Advocates With SI Pravin Singh, PS Kanjhawala.
Key Takeaways
- Adult men often become the primary targets when a marriage happens against family wishes, facing threats, pressure, and misuse of criminal law.
- Marriage between consenting adults is a personal decision, not a family-controlled contract, and social approval has no legal value.
- False or motivated criminal complaints are frequently used as tools of control when emotional or social authority over an adult son-in-law is lost.
- Life, liberty, and personal safety of men in such marriages require institutional protection because family hostility can quickly turn violent or coercive.
- Respecting adult choice in marriage is essential to prevent harassment, false cases, and long-term legal trauma against men who exercise their lawful freedom.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.