Right of major individuals to choose their life partner is an essential facet of personal dignity and liberty.

The petitioners, both being of legal age (major), solemnized their marriage against the wishes of the family members of Petitioner No. 1

They provided evidence of their majority through educational certificates and submitted a marriage certificate issued by Nagar Nigam Jabalpur dated 10.04.2026

The petitioners alleged that the family of Petitioner No. 1 is threatening to kill them or falsely implicate them in criminal proceedings to disrupt their peaceful matrimonial life in Firozabad, U.P.

Consequently, they approached the High Court seeking police protection and a direction to restrain authorities from taking coercive action based on private complaints

1. Whether adult citizens have a fundamental right to choose their life partner and live together without interference from family or State authorities

2. Whether the court should direct police authorities to provide protection to a couple apprehending violence due to an inter-caste or non-consensual (by parents) marriage

The court primarily applied the constitutional principle of personal liberty and dignity as interpreted by the Supreme Court of India.

Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another (2006) 5 SCC 475, which established that a major is free to marry anyone they like and that "honour" killings or harassment by parents for inter-caste marriages are illegal acts that must be sternly dealt with

Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Others (2018) 7 SCC 192, reinforcing that the right to choose a partner is an integral part of the right to life and liberty

The court observed that since the petitioners’ majority was undisputed and the marriage was evidenced by a valid certificate, no person or authority had the legal right to interfere with their choice

The court reasoned that any obstruction to an individual's choice of partner constitutes a direct assault on human dignity

Following the mandate in Lata Singh, the court determined that the administration has a duty to ensure that such couples are not subjected to threats or acts of violence

The court found that the petitioners’ apprehension of harm necessitated judicial intervention to safeguard their life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, and the Station House Officer of Police Station Madhotal, Jabalpur, to take appropriate steps to provide protection to the petitioners’ life and liberty upon their approach