In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of police protection for couples who marry against their families' wishes. The court clarified that such couples cannot claim police protection as an inherent right unless there is a demonstrable and serious threat to their life and liberty. This decision underscores the court's stance on balancing individual autonomy with societal norms and legal procedures.
Case Background
The case involved a petition filed by Shreya Kesarwani and her husband, who sought police protection and a directive to prevent interference from private respondents in their marital life. The couple had married without their families' consent and feared potential harm or harassment. They approached the court to ensure their safety and peaceful cohabitation.
Court's Observations
Justice Saurabh Srivastava, presiding over the case, noted that while courts can provide security in deserving cases, the petitioners failed to present any substantial evidence indicating a real threat to their safety. The court emphasized that there was no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were in peril. It was observed that:
"There is not even an iota of evidence to evince that private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners."
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the petitioners had not submitted a specific application or complaint to the concerned police authorities regarding any illegal conduct by the private respondents. There was also no indication that any action had been taken under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), nor that the police had failed to act on such a request.
Reference to Supreme Court Precedent
The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522), which held that courts are not meant to provide protection to youths who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes. This precedent reinforces the principle that legal protection is contingent upon the presence of a genuine threat, rather than being an automatic entitlement for all runaway couples.
Directive to Police Authorities
Despite dismissing the plea for immediate protection, the court acknowledged that the petitioners had submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot. The bench stated:
“In case the concerned police finds a real threat perception, he will do the needful in accordance with law.”
This directive ensures that if a legitimate threat emerges, the police are obligated to take appropriate action to safeguard the couple.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court's ruling delineates the boundaries of legal protection for couples marrying against familial consent. It emphasizes that while individual autonomy in choosing a life partner is respected, the right to police protection is not absolute and must be substantiated by credible evidence of a real threat. This judgment serves as a reminder that legal remedies are available, but they require a clear demonstration of necessity to be granted.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.