Even without valid Nikah, father cannot interfere in daughter’s marriage: Allahabad High Court protects couple

“The father cannot interfere in their married life even if they have not performed a valid Nikah or they are living together in a live-in-relationship,” the Allahabad High Court said on May 14.

Noting that the choice of a partner, whether within or outside marriage, lies within the exclusive domain of each individual, the court stated that Intimacies of marriage lie within a “core zone of privacy”, which is “inviolable”.

Underscoring that the absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith, it added that social approval for intimate personal decisions is not the basis for recognising them. Indeed, the Constitution protects personal liberty from “disapproving audiences”, the order said.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh said that intimacies of marriage lie outside the control of the state.

“An individual, upon attaining majority, is statutorily conferred a right to choose a partner, which if denied would not only affect his/her human rights but also his/her right to life and personal liberty. To disregard the choice of a person who is of the age of majority would not only be antithetical to the freedom of choice of a grown-up individual but would also be a threat to the concept of unity in diversity,” Allahabad High Court observed.

The Allahabad High Court remarked that intimacies of marriage, including the choices which individuals make on whether or not to marry and on whom to marry, lie “outside” the control of the “state”. It continued that courts as upholders of constitutional freedoms must safeguard these freedoms. The order highlighted that the cohesion and stability of our society depend on our syncretic culture, and the Constitution protects it, and courts are duty-bound not to swerve from the path of upholding our pluralism and diversity as a nation.

‘Personal liberty prohibited terrain for high court’

The court observed that the primary controversy was not the technical validity of the Nikah, but whether the petitioner’s fundamental rights were being violated.

The Allahabad High Court remarked that it has no hesitation in holding that the Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. It added that being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme, it must be protected, regardless of the solemnisation of an invalid or a void marriage/Nikah or even the absence of any marriage/Nikah between the parties.

“Right to choose a partner irrespective of caste, creed or religion, is inherent under right to life and personal liberty, an integral part of the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Allahabad High Court said.

Stating that a marriage can be dissolved at the behest of the parties to it, by a competent court of law and marital status is conferred through legislation or, as the case may be, custom, it said that deprivation of marital status is a matter of serious import and must be strictly in accordance with the law.

The Allahabad High Court underscored that the Constitution guarantees to each individual the right freely to practise, profess, and propagate religion, and choices of faith and belief, as indeed choices in matters of marriage, lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme.

Clarifying that neither the state nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters, the order noted that the laws form the essence of personal liberty under the Constitution, and in deciding whether a woman is a fit person for a man to marry, the high court has entered into prohibited terrain. It underlined that our choices are respected because they are ours.

Father cannot interfere in their married life: Allahabad High Court

• Admittedly, both the petitioners are majors and competent to act of their own free will and be held responsible for their acts.
• The father cannot interfere in their married life even if they have not performed a valid nikah or they are living together in a live-in-relationship.
• This court is not examining the validity and genuineness of the Nikahnama.
• The objection raised by the counsel for the father of the woman, as well as the additional chief counsel, appears to be misconceived and, in any case, premature.
• This court, at this stage, is examining the issue of the security of the life and liberty of the petitioners.
• The controversy that needs adjudication now is whether an appropriate writ/direction or order is warranted to allay the apprehensions of the petitioners for granting protection to them for the enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• The issue at hand, however, is not the marriage/nikah of the petitioners, but the deprivation of the fundamental right of seeking protection of life and liberty.
• I have no hesitation in holding that the Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal.
  The woman petitioner stated that she was a major girl, her nikah was performed with the petitioner no 2.

• At the time of her nikah, she was living in Dubai. She admitted that she made her signature on the Nikahnama when she came back to India, and her nikah was performed through video conferencing.
• She claimed in the open court that she had apprehension of a life threat from her father, who is also present in the court premises along with several other persons.
  She further stated that her relatives and friends of her father tried to stop her outside the court.

‘Interference by State in such matters has chilling effect’

• The strength of our Constitution lies in its acceptance of the plurality and diversity of our culture.
• Interference by the State in such matters has a seriously chilling effect on the exercise of freedoms.
• Others are dissuaded from exercising their liberties for fear of the reprisals which may result from the free exercise of choice.
• The chilling effect on others has a pernicious tendency to prevent them from asserting their liberty.
• Public spectacles involving a harsh exercise of State power prevent the exercise of freedom by others in the same milieu.
• Nothing can be as destructive of freedom and liberty. Fear silences freedom.
• It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations cast upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen.
• The right to human life is to be treated on a much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being a minor or a major.
• The mere fact that Nikahnama appears to be a suspicious document would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution of India, being citizens of India.
• Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to make decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe, are at the core of constitutional liberty. The Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics.
• The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or faith to which he or she seeks to adhere. Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity.
• The law may regulate (subject to constitutional compliance) the conditions of a valid marriage, as it may regulate the situations in which a marital tie can be ended or annulled. Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners.

Case of ‘video call’ Nikah

Both major petitioners solemnised their marriage in April 2025. They claimed to have attained the age of majority and to have solemnised their marriage/nikah of their own free will. The petitioners alleged that they were being harassed by the father of the woman. Therefore, they seek protection from this court to secure their life and liberty.

The state and the father of the woman vehemently opposed the plea, arguing that the marriage was invalid.

In support, they provided evidence, including passport copies, showing that the girl was in Dubai from January to May 2025 and was not physically present in India when the nikah was performed. However, witnesses and the Qazi admitted that the ceremony took place via video conferencing. The woman later confirmed in open court, stating she signed the Nikahnama upon her return to India.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Sanjay Singh submitted that the petitioners had applied online for registration of their marriage, and they belong to the same religion, and this was their first marriage.

State’s stand

The father of the woman and the Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent, Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and submitted that this was not a valid nikah.

The additional chief standing counsel submitted that the woman was not present in India, and the Qazi and other witnesses accepted the fact that the petitioner was in Dubai when the nikah was performed.

He submitted that in the report submitted by the district magistrate, the woman was seen in the video; however, the authenticity of the video was not verified.

In rebuttal, it was submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that the Nikahnama of the petitioner was a valid and genuine document. He contended that there was no requirement to be present personally at the time of nikah, and nikah may be performed through video conferencing.