Police must protect consenting adult couples from real and imminent threats to life and personal liberty.

The petitioners approached the Uttarakhand High Court seeking protection of their life and personal liberty.

They stated that they were in a relationship and had solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals at a temple on 8/9 September 2026.

Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the paternal uncle and aunt of petitioner No. 1, and Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, the cousins of petitioner No. 1, allegedly opposed the marriage and threatened the petitioners.

After the marriage, the petitioners stayed at Hotel Ganges River, Haridwar.

During the intervening night of 8/9 September 2026, Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, along with other persons, including Respondent No. 8, stated to be a police constable, allegedly entered their hotel room, assaulted and intimidated them, and threatened them because of their marriage.

The petitioners were medically examined and lodged an FIR concerning the incident, in which investigation was pending.

The petitioners asserted that both had attained majority and had married voluntarily, without force, coercion, undue influence or threat.

They appeared before the Court, were identified by their respective counsel, and stated that they intended to live together peacefully as husband and wife.

Whether the petitioners, being major persons who claimed to have voluntarily married, were entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty against alleged threats and interference by private respondents?

Whether the police authorities should be directed to assess the threat perception and take protective measures without expressing any opinion on the validity of the marriage or the inter se rights of the parties?

The Court relied on the principle recognised by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2006) 5 SCC 475, that adult individuals have the right to marry according to their choice and are entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty against unlawful threats or interference.

The Court applied the corresponding constitutional protection of life and personal liberty, while clarifying that protection proceedings do not require adjudication upon the validity of the marriage or the inter se rights of the parties.

The Court found that the petitioners were prima facie majors and had personally stated that their marriage was voluntary and consensual.

Their allegations of opposition, threats, physical assault and intimidation, supported by their medical examination and the registration of an FIR, disclosed a basis for seeking police intervention.

Applying the principle in Lata Singh, the Court held that the petitioners’ choice to reside together as husband and wife could not lawfully be obstructed through threats, coercion, harassment or violence.

However, because the Court was not determining the validity of the marriage or the parties’ competing rights, it directed the police only to examine the representation and assess the existence of a real and imminent threat.

The Station House Officer, Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar, was directed to examine their representation and assess the threat perception.

If a real and imminent threat existed, the police authorities were required to provide appropriate protection and ensure that no person unlawfully interfered with, intimidated, harassed or coerced the petitioners on account of their marriage.

The writ petition was disposed of without any finding on the validity of the marriage or the inter se rights of the parties.