The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that adults of sound mind who choose their life partners do not require societal approval or validation from family members, emphasising that every individual’s choice of a spouse is protected under constitutional rights to personal liberty, dignity and autonomy. The court was hearing a writ petition filed by a woman who alleged that her family had repeatedly obstructed her choice of partner and had interfered in her relationship with her husband by lodging complaints with the police, including charges under provisions of the penal law relating to kidnapping, wrongful confinement and causing hurt. She contended that her family’s actions were aimed at intimidating her and her husband to abandon their relationship, despite both being consenting adults, and that the police had been used to harass them at the behest of relatives.
In examining the matter, the High Court referred to settled legal principles affirming that the freedom to choose a life partner is an integral facet of personal liberty protected under the Constitution, and that such choices cannot be subjected to societal, familial or community approval. The court underlined that in a constitutional democracy, adults have the fundamental right to decide whom they marry, and any attempt to restrain or interfere with that choice through coercion, threats or misuse of criminal law cannot be sanctioned. It observed that personal autonomy in matters of marriage and partnership is deeply rooted in individual dignity and equality, and that parents or other relatives cannot legitimately impose their will on an adult who has exercised her own free choice.
The High Court noted that, in the present case, the alleged criminal complaints appeared to be driven by personal animosity and an attempt to exercise control over the petitioner’s life decisions, rather than by any genuine concern for legal violations. It observed that the conduct of the petitioner’s family in approaching the police with allegations against her husband and his relatives must be scrutinised in light of the context of their insistence against the relationship, and that authorities must guard against being instruments in perpetuating familial interference in consensual adult relationships. The court emphasised that police action cannot be invoked to enforce societal norms or familial preferences where there is no credible allegation of offence independent of personal disputes over marriage.
In allowing the petition and quashing the complaints against the woman’s husband and his family, the High Court reiterated that mere displeasure with a consensual relationship, even by close relatives, does not transform personal disagreements into criminality. The court stressed that the legitimacy of a consensual adult relationship cannot be undermined by allegations rooted in subjective opposition, and that criminal law cannot be used as a tool of harassment in such circumstances. It underscored that equal protection of law and the right to form intimate personal relationships free from unwarranted interference are core constitutional values that extend to choices of life partners.
The High Court directed that all proceedings arising from the complaints lodged by the petitioner’s family against her husband and his associates be quashed, observing that continuation of such proceedings would perpetuate harassment and would contravene the petitioner’s constitutional rights. It noted that the actions of the family in dragging the matter into police and criminal proceedings reflected a misuse of process and a disregard for the autonomy of consenting adults. The judgment highlighted that societal approval, whether based on caste, community or parental preference, cannot override the self-determination of individuals in choosing their companions, and that the State’s role is to protect, not to mediate or endorse, familial objections to lawful personal choices.
By emphasising the freedom of adults to choose their partners without needing societal or parental approval, and by restraining the use of criminal law as a means of interference, the Delhi High Court reinforced the principle that personal autonomy in intimate matters is constitutionally protected. The decision affirms that adults in a free society are entitled to make choices about their personal relationships and that the law will not countenance actions that seek to penalise, intimidate or subordinate individual liberty to familial or societal pressures.
Case Title: Petition challenging criminal complaints arising from familial opposition to consensual adult marriage
Court: Delhi High Court
Outcome: Complaints quashed; reaffirmation of adults’ autonomy to choose life partners.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.