LUCKNOW: While defending a woman’s constitutional right to marry a person of her choice, the Allahabad High Court delivered a strong message to the family and relatives criticising their opposition by calling it ‘despicable’.
The case involved a 27-year-old woman who had to resort to seeking police action by submitting a complaint against her father and brother, fearing abduction by them for choosing the life partner of her choice.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, described the family’s resistance as 'despicable', reiterating Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees an adult individual’s right to marry according to their choice.
“It is despicable that the petitioners should object to the decision of an adult member of the family, a woman 27 years of age, from marrying a man of her choice. At least that is the right which every adult has under the Constitution by virtue of Article 21,” said the Bench.
While hearing a plea filed by the woman’s father and brother, who sought to quash the FIR registered against them under Sections 140(3), 62, and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS) in response to her complaint, the court, however, clarified that there was no conclusive evidence hinting at the petitioners (her father and brother) intentions to abduct her (complainant).
It acknowledged that the matter reflected a broader societal concern -- the mismatch between legal rights and traditional social norms.
“The fact that there is social and familial resistance to the exercise of such right is a glaring depiction of the 'value gap' between the constitutional and social norms. So long as there is a gap between the values fostered by the Constitution and those cherished by the society, these kinds of incidents would continue to happen,” said the Court.
Though the Court provided interim protection to the petitioners by staying their arrest, it also issued firm instructions preventing them from interfering in the woman’s life or contacting her in any way.
“The petitioners shall not contact the fourth respondent over telephone or any other electronic device, or using the internet through friends or associates. The Police are also restrained from interfering with the fourth respondent's freedom and liberty in any manner, whatsoever,” directed the Bench.
Further, the Court issued notices to the state government and other authorities concerned, giving them three weeks to respond by filing a counter-affidavit.
The next hearing is scheduled for July 18, 2025.