Uttarakhand HC Grants Protection to Couple Despite Age Objection

In a significant ruling emphasizing individual liberty and the right to safety, the Uttarakhand High Court has directed police authorities to provide protection to a couple facing threats from family members due to their marriage. The court granted the relief despite objections from the private respondents regarding the groom's age at the time of the wedding.

The Conflict: Love Against the Grain The petitioners, Vanshika Tomar and her husband, approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to secure protection from family members who were allegedly threatening them with violence. The petitioners submitted that they had solemnized their marriage on March 24, 2026. At the time of the wedding, the bride was 19 years and 6 months old, while the groom was 20 years old.

The private respondents opposed the petition, contending that because the male petitioner had not yet reached the age of 21, the marriage was not valid. They argued that the union did not meet the legal requirements for a "valid marriage," thereby attempting to challenge the couple's right to protection.

Legal Arguments and the Court’s Balancing Act Counsel for the petitioners acknowledged that while the groom had not attained the age of 21—the threshold for a male to legally marry—any concerns regarding the validity of the marriage would, at most, render it "voidable," not a ground to deny the couple’s fundamental right to life and physical safety.

Following an earlier direction from a Coordinate Bench, the couple appeared before a court-appointed counsellor. The resulting report provided clarity to the court: the female petitioner was adamant about her desire to stay with her husband and expressed that she was happy in his company, choosing to distance herself from her parents’ disapproval.

Key Observations The judgment reflects the judicial approach to prioritizing personal safety in marriage-related disputes:

• Regarding the petitioners' state of mind: "The petitioner no. 1 is not ready to go with her parents and she is happy with the company of the petitioner no. 2."
• On the grounds for relief: "In that view of the matter, and in view of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475 , the petitioners have made out a case for grant of protection."
• On the mandate for police action: "The S.H.O. concerned is further directed to summon the private respondents , and such other persons, who are inimically placed towards the marriage of the petitioners, and counsel them, in accordance with law."

Precedents and Final Decision The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. , which has long been the cornerstone for protecting couples from harassment by families opposed to their marital choices. Justice Alok Mahra noted that the primary concern of the court was the immediate threat to the "life and limb" of the petitioners.

Directing the Station House Officer of Police Station Buggawala, District Haridwar, the court ordered an immediate assessment of the threat perception. The police were instructed to provide necessary protection if a threat was found to exist and, crucially, to bring in the opposing family members for counseling to prevent further escalation. This decision reaffirms that an alleged discrepancy in marital age cannot be weaponized to threaten the lives of individuals who have chosen their own life partner.