Major couples voluntarily marrying are entitled to protection of life and personal liberty against unlawful interference.

The petitioners, who claimed to be majors, stated that they were in a relationship and had solemnized their marriage (Nikah) on 27 July 2026 according to Muslim rites and rituals.

They had applied for registration of the marriage under the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand.

The petitioners alleged that petitioner no. 2’s father, uncles and paternal aunt opposed the marriage, extended threats to them, and had allegedly manhandled petitioner no. 1’s paralysed father.

Both petitioners appeared before the Court, were identified by counsel, and stated that they had married voluntarily, without force, coercion or undue influence, and were residing together as husband and wife.

The Registry had objected to the petitioners’ failure to disclose their earlier marital status; the objection was overlooked after counsel stated that neither petitioner had been married previously.

The Court applied the constitutional protection of life and personal liberty and the principle that consenting major adults are entitled to choose their partner and live together without unlawful interference.

Relying on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, (2006) 5 SCC 475, the Court held that persons who have attained majority and voluntarily enter into a relationship or marriage are entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty in accordance with law.

The Court also proceeded on the limited principle that police authorities must assess a genuine and imminent threat and prevent private individuals from taking the law into their own hands, while leaving the validity of the marriage and related inter se rights open.

The Court noted that both petitioners had produced documents showing that they were majors and had personally affirmed that their marriage was voluntary and free from coercion or undue influence.

In light of their assertion that they were residing together as husband and wife and their allegations of threats from the private respondents, the Court applied the principle in Lata Singh that consenting adults are entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty.

However, the Court did not adjudicate the validity of the Nikah, the pending registration under the Uniform Civil Code, or the parties’ inter se rights.

Instead, it directed the jurisdictional police officer to independently examine the petitioners’ representation and assess whether a real and imminent threat existed.

Without expressing any opinion on the validity of their marriage or the inter se rights of the parties, it directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, to examine their representation and assess the threat perception.

If a real and imminent threat was found, the police were directed to provide appropriate protection in accordance with law and to prevent the private respondents or any other person from unlawfully interfering with, intimidating, harassing or coercing the petitioners on account of their marriage.

The writ petition and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.