Police must assess threats and protect consenting adult couples from unlawful interference.

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 stated that they were in a relationship and voluntarily solemnised their Nikah on 18 January 2025 in accordance with Muslim rites and rituals. A male child was born from the marriage on 21 October 2025, and the marriage was subsequently registered under the applicable provisions of the Uniform Civil Code.

The father and relatives of petitioner No. 1 allegedly opposed the marriage and threatened and intimidated the petitioners. Due to apprehension for their safety, the petitioners initially stayed in Delhi and thereafter began residing together with their child at Peerpura, Police Station Dehat, District Haridwar.

Both petitioners were stated to be majors, and the documents on record prima facie established their attainment of majority.

Appearing before the Court, they affirmed that the marriage had been solemnised voluntarily, without force, coercion, fraud or undue influence, and that they were living together as husband and wife with their child.

1. Whether the petitioners, being major consenting adults who claimed to have voluntarily entered into a marital relationship, were entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty against alleged threats from private respondents.

2. Whether the police authorities should be directed to assess the threat perception and provide protection in the event of a real and imminent threat, without adjudicating the validity of the marriage or inter se rights of the parties.

The Court applied the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects an individual’s right to live with dignity and to make autonomous personal choices.

It held that the right of two consenting adults to choose their life partners and lead a life of their choice cannot ordinarily be obstructed by family members or private individuals through threats, intimidation or violence.

The Court relied on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another, (2006) 5 SCC 475, recognising the right of consenting adults to marry or live together without unlawful interference.

It further applied the principle that police authorities must act in accordance with law to prevent real and imminent threats to life and personal liberty, while the protection proceedings should not become an adjudication of the validity of the marriage or the parties’ inter se rights.

The petitioners’ statements, their apparent majority, and their assertion of voluntarily solemnising the marriage established a prima facie claim to personal autonomy and protection under Article 21.

Since the alleged threats arose from opposition to their marriage, the Court held that private respondents could not be permitted to interfere unlawfully with the petitioners’ peaceful life.

However, without determining the validity of the marriage or the parties’ substantive rights, the Court directed the Station House Officer to independently examine the petitioners’ representation and assess whether a real and imminent threat existed.

The police were required to provide appropriate protection strictly in accordance with law and to prevent intimidation, harassment, coercion or other unlawful interference.

If a real and imminent threat was found, the police authorities were directed to take appropriate lawful measures to protect the petitioners.

The police were also directed to ensure that the private respondents or any other person did not take the law into their own hands or unlawfully interfere with, intimidate, harass or coerce the petitioners on account of their marriage.

No opinion was expressed on the validity of the marriage or the inter se rights of the parties.