Consenting adults of marriageable age are entitled to police protection against threats and harassment post-marriage.

The petitioners, both major adults and neighbors, entered into a consensual love relationship and solemnized their marriage on 27.02.2026 at Arya Samaj, Jaipur, Rajasthan, against the wishes of the second petitioner’s family.

The marriage was subsequently registered before competent authorities.

Following the union, the petitioners alleged they were subjected to continuous threats of "honour killing" and false criminal implication by Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 (the family of Petitioner No. 2).

Despite filing written complaints with the police, the petitioners claimed no effective action was taken to ensure their safety.

Consequently, they filed this writ petition seeking police protection and the recording of their statements to fortify their marital status.

1. Whether the petitioners, as consenting adults who married of their own free will, are entitled to police protection against threats to their life and liberty from family members.

2. Whether the state authorities are mandated to take preventive measures when a major couple alleges harassment following an inter-caste or controversial marriage.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, identifying the right to marry a person of one's choice as an integral facet of this fundamental right.

The precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another (2006) 5 SCC 475, which established that inter-caste and inter-faith marriages are in the national interest and that the administration must ensure major couples are not harassed or subjected to violence.

The Court observed that since both petitioners are majors and married by choice, their union is legally valid.

In applying the Lata Singh doctrine, the Court reasoned that while parents may disapprove of a marriage and sever social ties, they have no legal authority to threaten, harass, or instigate violence against the couple.

The Court found that the apprehension of the petitioners regarding their safety necessitated judicial intervention to uphold their constitutional rights.

It rejected the State's contention that the lack of specific incident details rendered the petition meritless, prioritizing the proactive protection of personal liberty over procedural technicalities of a prior cognizable offense.

The Court directed the Superintendent of Police and the concerned Station House Officer to ensure no harm is caused to the petitioners and to provide necessary protection.

It further ordered that any complaints made by the petitioners be promptly examined for preventive measures and directed the private respondents (family members) not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful matrimonial life.

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.