SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the police to provide adequate security to a couple who approached it apprehending physical violence and harassment from their relatives after marrying against their wishes.
Allowing the plea for protection, Justice Shahzad Azeem, in an order dated October 23, directed the official respondents to ensure adequate security for the petitioners and act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgments in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018).
The court, however, made the protection subject to verification by the authorities that both petitioners were adults and that their marriage had been solemnised in accordance with the applicable laws. It also clarified that if any FIR had been registered against either petitioner, the police could proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.
The petition was filed by Jaswinder Kour and another through advocate Harsh Dubey. They submitted that both were adults, had married of their own free will and were living together as husband and wife, but feared physical violence and harassment from their relatives, including respondents 5 to 18, who were opposed to their marriage.
After examining the documents placed on record, the court noted that the first petitioner’s date of birth was March 26, 1998, while the second petitioner was born on October 10, 1992. Their Aadhaar cards and Class 10 marks cards issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education showed that they were 28 and 34 years old, respectively.
The court also noted that the couple had solemnised their marriage on March 8, 2024, according to Hindu rituals and traditions.
Emphasising the constitutional protection afforded to the choice of adult individuals in matters of marriage, Justice Azeem observed that the decision of two adults to choose each other as life partners was protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
“When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognised under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution,” the court observed.
It further held that family, community or clan approval was not required when two consenting adults decided to marry, adding that their choice could not be subordinated to notions of family or community honour.
The court stressed that individual liberty and dignity were closely connected, observing that “the choice of an individual is an extricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice”.
It further stated that any obstruction to an individual’s freedom to express and exercise such a choice would undermine the constitutional guarantee of dignity.
“When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so,” the order stated, adding that any infringement of this right would amount to a constitutional violation.
The court also underscored the responsibility of constitutional courts to protect individual liberty and ensure that a person’s right to a dignified existence was not compromised by interference from others.
The respondents were represented by advocate Sagira Jaffar, appearing vice senior additional advocate general Monika Kohli.
While disposing of the writ petition along with the connected application, the court clarified that its order should not be construed as authentication of the marriage or a final determination of the petitioners’ age or legal eligibility to marry. These matters, it said, remained subject to compliance with the requirements of the prevailing laws.
