‘Consent of family not necessary’: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court shields adults married for love

Findings

• When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is a manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
• Such a right has the sanction of constitutional law, and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected, and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking.
• The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection, and the values it stands for.

Background

• A case brought before the court involves two petitioners, who approached seeking judicial intervention for their safety.
• The matter involves the petitioner’s decision to marry of their own free will, a choice made in direct opposition to the wishes of their relatives.
• Both petitioners assert that they are majors and have the legal capacity to enter into a marriage.
• They submitted that they have contracted marriage out of their free will and are currently residing together as husband and wife.
• They moved to the court, citing a grave apprehension of physical violence and harassment from their relatives, who oppose the union.

Other high courts

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently directed the police to take “necessary steps” to protect a couple from threats who were in a live-in relationship.

Justice Subhas Mehla noted that the fundamental right to life stands at such a high pedestal that it must be protected even in the absence of a valid marriage between the parties.

“The fundamental right to life and liberty is so sacrosanct and stands at such a high pedestal that it must be protected even in the absence of an incident like solemnisation of a valid marriage between the parties,” the order said.

The court made this observation while dealing with a plea seeking protection of a couple from physical violence and harassment by their relatives.