Parental Anguish Cannot Eclipse Adult’s Right to Marry: Delhi HC Orders Protection for Inter-Faith Couple

New Delhi | August 08, 2025 - The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has reaffirmed that an adult's right to choose a life partner is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, which cannot be overridden by parental objections, however well-intentioned. While granting protection to an inter-faith couple facing threats from the woman's family, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula underscored the State's "positive obligation" to create a safe environment for citizens to exercise this choice without fear or coercion.

Case Background: A Choice Met with Opposition

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Mohammad Shahnoor Mansoori, seeking protection for himself and his partner, Ms. 'X', a 25-year-old Hindu woman. The couple, in a relationship for over seven years, decided to solemnize their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. This decision was met with strong opposition from Ms. 'X's father, who objected on religious and personal grounds. The couple alleged that this opposition escalated into explicit threats, creating a "reasonable apprehension of physical harm and social coercion," compelling them to seek judicial intervention.

A status report filed by the State confirmed that the couple was already residing in a safe house. It also verified that Ms. 'X', a major with M.Sc. and B.Ed. degrees, was making her decision to marry the petitioner voluntarily and with full understanding of its implications.

Arguments in Court

The Couple's Plea: Represented by Mr. Utkarsh Singh, the couple did not seek the Court's endorsement of their relationship but an assurance from the State that their constitutional right to choose could be exercised without fear for their life and liberty.

The Father's Stance: Counsel for the father, Mr. Shivank Pratap Singh, argued that his client’s concerns were born out of genuine apprehension for his daughter’s welfare. He stated that the father was deeply troubled that such a life-altering decision was made without consultation and harboured no intent to harm his daughter, only wishing for her to return home and reconsider her decision.

Court's Interaction and Constitutional Mandate

The Court facilitated a telephonic conversation between Ms. 'X' and her hospitalized father to ease tensions. However, Ms. 'X' later informed the Court that the conversation left her feeling "emotionally pressured" and that she perceived "veiled threats."

Justice Narula engaged in a detailed interaction with Ms. 'X', not to judge her choice, but to ascertain that her decision was "informed, voluntary, and free from coercion." Ms. 'X' unequivocally affirmed her seven-year relationship and her firm, deliberate decision to marry the petitioner, confirming they had already initiated the process under the Special Marriage Act.

The Court heavily relied on the constitutional framework, stating:

"Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees to every individual the right to life and personal liberty, a guarantee that has been judicially recognised to encompass the freedom to marry a person of one’s choice. The role of the State in this context is neither passive nor discretionary; it carries a positive obligation to safeguard the life and liberty of its citizens, even when such protection is sought against the wishes of their own families."

Acknowledging the father's anguish, the Court made a clear distinction between parental concern and an individual's autonomy:

"Upon attaining the age of majority, the right to make decisions regarding marriage becomes the individual’s personal prerogative. Parental preference, however well-intentioned, cannot legally override that autonomy."

Final Directions and Police Scrutiny

Disposing of the petition, the Court issued the following key directions:

1. Continued Protection: The State must provide protection to the couple in a safe house until their marriage is solemnized.

2. Threat Assessment: The concerned DCP must periodically and meaningfully assess the threat perception, following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India .

3. Prompt Action: Any instance of threat or intimidation must be promptly recorded by the police, and appropriate preventive and penal measures must be taken.

Furthermore, the Court took serious note of an allegation made by Ms. 'X' that she was previously separated from the petitioner against her will and placed in a shelter home by the police. Directing the DCP to record her statement on this specific claim, the Court ordered a report identifying any responsible officers if unlawful separation is found. The DCP was also asked to report on the functioning of the dedicated helpline for such couples mandated by the Supreme Court.

The matter is listed for further consideration of the DCP's report on September 12, 2025