Police must protect major couples from threats and unlawful interference with their chosen marriage.

The petitioners, stated to be majors, solemnized their marriage on 17 July 2026 and produced a marriage certificate issued by Shri Shiv Sahrda Mandir, Jabalpur, along with Aadhaar Cards evidencing their ages. Petitioner No. 1, the wife, was approximately 23 years old, and Petitioner No. 2, the husband, was approximately 26 years old.

They alleged that the wife’s family and members of their community were threatening to initiate false criminal proceedings, and that the husband and his family had been threatened on account of the marriage.

The petitioners therefore invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking police protection for themselves and the husband’s family, protection against harassment, and non-interference with their matrimonial life.

The State opposed the petition but did not dispute the petitioners’ majority or the fact that the marriage had been solemnized of their own free will.

Whether major individuals who have voluntarily solemnized their marriage are entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty against threats, harassment, or unlawful interference by family members or community members.

Whether the police authorities should be directed to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners and take preventive action against persons threatening or harassing them.

The Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 to protect the petitioners’ life and personal liberty.

It applied the principle that a major person is free to marry a person of his or her choice and that family members or other persons cannot threaten, harass, or commit violence against such a couple.

Relying principally on Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, the Court reiterated that consensual marriages between majors are legally protected and that police authorities must ensure that the couple and their relatives are not subjected to threats, harassment, or violence; persons responsible must be proceeded against in accordance with law.

The Court also referred to the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Arti Pal & Others v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 19618 of 2026.

The Court found that both petitioners were majors and had voluntarily married on 17 July 2026, facts which were supported by the documents on record and were not disputed by the State.

In light of the alleged threats of false implication and possible violence, the Court held that the petitioners’ right to choose their matrimonial partner and live together could not be obstructed by family or community members.

Applying Lata Singh, the Court treated threats or harassment directed at the petitioners or the husband’s family as unlawful and concluded that the police were duty-bound to take appropriate protective and preventive measures.

The direction was issued consistently with the principle that no person may unlawfully interfere with the peaceful matrimonial life of consenting major adults or subject them to threats, harassment, or violence.