SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 276

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anuroop Singhi, J.
Seema Kumari D/o Puran Mal Saini - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department – Respondent 
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 615 of 2026
Decided On : 13-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahendra Singh Gothwal with Mr. Ghanshyam Maharda
For the Respondent: Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P., with Mr. Shubham Saini

Consenting adults possess a fundamental right to marry individuals of their choice. Consequently, the state is mandated to provide necessary measures to protect the life and personal liberty of such individuals when they face threats or intimidation due to their matrimonial decisions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19 and 21 - Fundamental rights - Right to life and personal liberty - Right to choose a spouse - Consenting adults who have attained the age of majority possess the constitutional right to marry individuals of their choice - Individual autonomy in matrimonial matters cannot be restricted by societal or familial disapproval - The state is obligated to ensure the safety and liberty of individuals when threatened for exercising their fundamental rights. (Paras 10, 11)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Police protection - Where there is an apprehension of danger to life and liberty following a marriage, the court is empowered to direct law enforcement to assess threats and provide necessary security measures to ensure that no harm is caused to the individuals. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Two petitioners, both adults, entered into a marriage and registered it. Following the event, they perceived threats from certain individuals opposed to their union and approached the court seeking protection of their life and liberty.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the choice of a partner is a personal right protected by the Constitution. As the petitioners expressed apprehension of danger, the local police were directed to assess the threat perception and adopt necessary measures to ensure their safety.

Issues: Whether major individuals exercising their right to marry are entitled to state protection when their life or liberty is threatened by external parties or family members.

Ratio Decidendi: Since the right to marry is an intrinsic part of personal autonomy, any threat to persons exercising this right warrants immediate intervention by law enforcement to uphold the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions to the police authorities to protect the petitioners' safety.

Table of Content
1. verification of procedural compliance and petitioner standing (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. major individuals seeking protection from familial interference (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. fundamental right to marriage and judicial obligation for protection (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. issuance of protective mandates to law enforcement authorities (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

ORDER :

ANUROOP SINGHI, J.

1. The defects as pointed out by the Registry are over-ruled.

2. Both the petitioners who are present in-person before this Court are major and in support of their date of birth, copies of Class X marksheet and/or Aadhaar card have been filed as Annexure Nos.1 and 2.

3. Petitioners have also been duly identified by their counsel.

4. By virtue of the present criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought protection of their life and personal liberty from private respondent Nos.5 to 8, as they are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from the said private respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have solemnized their marriage on 26.11.2025 and the same has been duly registered in the Office of Marriage Registration Officer, Kishanpole Zone, Jaipur, Rajasthan (Annexure-3). Learned counsel further submits that the private respondents and others are not happy with their marriage and the petitioners are receiving continuous threats.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major and are mature enough to take independent decision of their life.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once the petitioners have willingly and with utmost responsibility have chosen to solemnize their marriage, the private respondents have no right to harass, much less threaten the petitioners and take law in their hands and given the fact that the life and liberty of the petitioners is in danger, police protection deserves to be granted to the petitioners and hence, protection is being sought.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate directions be issued.

9. As the order intended to be passed herein is non-prejudicial to the private respondents, no notices are required to be issued to them.

10. It is a well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 7 SCC 1992 and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan KM & Ors. reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368, that the right of two consenting adults to marry a person of their choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been consistently held that the autonomy of individuals in matters of marriage and personal relations cannot be curtailed by societal or familial considerations, and once two major individuals have taken a conscious decision to enter into a matrimonial alliance, the same cannot be interfered with on the basis of perceived notions of morality or social acceptability. Thus, the life and personal liberty of such individuals is required to be protected, except in accordance with the procedure established by law, as mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. In view of the above legal position and factual averments, after perusing record and considering the submissions made, as the petitioners apprehend threat to their life and liberty, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have every right to seek protection of their life, limb and liberty.

12. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present criminal writ petition with the directions to the petitioners to file an appropriate application seeking protection before respondent No.4 – the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan, who is directed to duly consider grievance of the petitioners and after analyzing the threat perceptions, will take all possible

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top