Facts
Two individuals, both aged 24, solemnized their marriage on June 10, 2026, according to Vedic customs and supported by a marriage certificate and identification documents.
Source reference: para. 2, 5The petitioners alleged that the wife’s family and community members were threatening them with violence, "honor killings," and the initiation of false criminal proceedings.
Source reference: para. 2, 5Consequently, they filed a writ petition seeking police protection to ensure their safety and liberty while residing together.
Source reference: para. 1, 2Issues
1. Whether adult citizens who marry of their own free will are entitled to state protection against threats of violence or harassment from family members.
Source reference: para. 2, 72. Whether the state and police authorities have a duty to prevent interference with an individual's right to choose a life partner.
Source reference: para. 2, 6Law Applied
Adults possess the legal right to marry a person of their choice without outside interference.
Source reference: para. 2Inter-caste or inter-religious marriages between consenting adults are legal and must be protected by the administration from harassment or "honor" based violence as per Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another (2006).
Source reference: para. 6Any attempt to obstruct the choice of a partner is an assault on human dignity and a violation of constitutional rights as per Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018).
Source reference: para. 2Reasoning
The court observed that the petitioners' status as majors was undisputed by the State’s counsel.
Source reference: para. 3, 5Applying the Lata Singh precedent, the court reasoned that because the parties are adults, they have the absolute freedom to reside with whomever they choose, and no criminal offense is committed by such a union.
Source reference: para. 6The court noted that threats of "honor killing" or harassment by family members are illegal, barbaric, and shameful acts that the police are duty-bound to prevent.
Source reference: para. 6Since the petitioners proved their age and marriage, the court held that the State must intervene to ensure their safety from the high-handed acts of the family.
Source reference: para. 7Holding
The Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioners’ right to life and liberty must be upheld.
It directed the Superintendent of Police, Harda, to investigate the matter and take immediate, appropriate steps to provide protection to the petitioners.
Source reference: para. 7The police were further instructed to ensure the couple is not harassed and to initiate criminal proceedings against any individuals issuing threats or committing acts of violence.
Source reference: para. 6, 7Original Court PDF
Isha RathorevsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in