Delhi HC pulls up police for separating interfaith couple: ‘If couple wants marriage, will protect them’ rules judge

A 26-year old Muslim man, in a relationship with a 25-year old Hindu woman since 2018, had moved HC last month seeking its urgent directions to the Delhi Police to provide the couple necessary protection and a safe house.

The request was made after the couple expressed their intent to marry, which was met with familial opposition and threats.

According to advocate Utkarsh Singh, representing the man, instead of being provided with the safety, the couple was “forcibly separated”, with the woman “medically examined, and later detained at a woman’s shelter July 24, despite her repeated pleas to be with her partner.

The police, in a status report filed before HC on August 6, asserted “there was no element of coercion, unlawful separation, or procedural irregularity at any stage”, with all actions “taken purely from a welfare and constitutional standpoint,” with due regard to the woman’s “safety and autonomy”.

The police’s submission, however, did not convince the court.

The woman, who virtually interacted with Justice Sanjeev Narula on Friday, said that she was taken away forcibly by the police and separated from her partner. She asserted that when the couple had initially sought protection, the police had said “there is no such thing as a safe cell”, and coerced her into undergoing a medical examination.

“I went for a medical examination and without telling me or without my consent, I was taken to a shelter home,” she told Justice Narula, adding that all her personal belongings were taken away, including her phone.

Orally remarking that “police has to sensitise its officers” and that they are “forcibly separating” consenting adult partners, Justice Narula expressed disapproval with the police’s status report. “Has he (the police personnel who filed the status report) even interacted with the (woman) to understand what has happened? I’m not going to allow this at all.”

The HC also refused to allow the woman’s father – who is opposed to the relationship – to interfere, noting that he has “no role” given that his daughter is an adult and has consented to the relationship.

The father’s counsel impressed before the court that “social reality has to be taken into consideration”, with “in Indian society, parents have to be consulted” for marriage.

To this, the court orally responded, “What law requires an adult to ask father for marrying someone of different faith?… You are insisting on something that I cannot appreciate… Constitutional right guarantees she can marry of her choice and I am going to honour that… If the couple wants to get married, I am going to protect them.”

After sustained interaction with the woman, Justice Narula went on to assure her orally, “If you are firm about your decision, we will support you. I am supporting your choice, I will support your decision.”

“As far as the police are concerned, they will support you,” the HC said, while recording in its order that the woman’s “intention to marry is informed and consistent based on her relationship with him (her partner) over the past seven years”.