Back
, Entitled to :
In a significant ruling underscoring the autonomy of adult relationships, the has held that a is , and in such a relationship are entitled to against threats from family members. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over a single bench, directed the police to provide all necessary assistance to a couple who had sought protection from the woman's father and brother.
The Couple's Plea: Fear of Violence Despite Complaint
The petition was filed by a couple—both born in 1993 and 1990 respectively—who had known each other since 2014 and had been living together in a . They intended to marry on , but claimed that the woman's father (respondent no. 3) and brother (respondent no. 4) were unhappy with their relationship and had been threatening them with violence. The couple approached the SHO of on , but alleged that no action was taken, leaving their lives and liberty under grave threat.
Court Affirms Fundamental Right to Choose Partners
The court swiftly issued notice, with the State's counsel accepting. Relying on the 's decision in , Justice Banerjee observed that irrespective of whether majors have entered into wedlock, they have an to reside with each other as they desire. The court further noted that live-in relationships now have , including recognition under the .
The bench emphasized that
"the petitioners herein are though in a
, are not legally married to each, however, being
, the same is
, though not legally."
It added that marriages in India are recognized between two consenting individuals, irrespective of caste, creed, colour, religion, or faith. Consequently, both
(freedom) and
() of the guarantee to each party.
Societal Morals Cannot Curtail Individual Liberty
Drawing from the 's ruling in
, the High Court noted that curtailment of an individual's choice by societal morals and prejudices
"amounts to
."
The court categorically stated that once the petitioners have willingly and consensually chosen to enter into a
, nobody—parents, relatives, or friends—has the right to cause any hindrance or interfere with that choice,
"much less threaten their life and/or liberty."
Protection Orders Issued
Allowing the petition, the court disposed of the matter with clear directions. The petitioners are at liberty to contact the SHO of (phone: +8750870329) or the Beat Constable Pardeep (phone: +9812405659) whenever the need arises, who shall provide all necessary assistance in accordance with law. If the couple chooses to shift residence to another police station's jurisdiction, they must inform the concerned SHO within three days, and that station shall extend similar protection.
The judgment reinforces the broad contours of personal autonomy, declaring that the of cannot be subordinated to family disapproval or societal norms.
