Unfettered right to reside with each other: Delhi High Court orders police protection for live-in couple facing family threats

Findings

• Since both petitioners are born in the years 2006 and 2007 respectively, they are consenting adults who have all rights to choose and reside with their respective partner(s) as per their individual choice/ desire with no interference from anyone.
• Both petitioners herein are in a live-in relationship and in fact have voluntarily executed a live-in relationship agreement inter se them to give it a recognition
• The live-in relationship which the petitioners are in, is in a way akin to marriage, though not legally.
• At the end of the day, marriage in India is recognised if it is inter se two consenting individuals, irrespective of the caste, creed, colour, religion and/ or faith.
• In fact, the Constitution of India guarantees fundamental rights in the form of Article 19 thereof, which enshrines their respective right to freedom and in the form of Article 21 which enshrines their respective right to life and liberty.
• As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M, curtailment of the same by societal morals and prejudices amounts to deprivation of one’s very individualistic identity.
• Petitioners are not legally married and are in a live-in relationship.
• However, since they are both major and consenting adults who have willingly and with utmost responsibility chosen to enter into a relationship with each other, and for which they have even executed a live-in relationship agreement recording their intent, no one have any right to cause hindrance, much less threaten their life and/ or liberty.

Court’s directions

• The petition is allowed and the petitioners shall be free to contact either the SHO, Daryaganj or the beat constable, if, as and when the need so arises, who shall provide all necessary assistance to the petitioners in accordance with law.
• If the petitioners choose to reside within the jurisdiction of any other police station, they will apprise about the same and give the complete details including the address to the SHO within a period of three days from shifting.
• Needless to say, the concerned SHO and/or beat constable shall extend the aforesaid protection to the petitioners.

Case

• The petitioners had approached the high court seeking immediate and adequate protection against alleged harassment/ threats by the father of one of the petitioners.
• The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were consenting adults known to and involved with each other since and from 2024.
• It was submitted that they were residing together and qua which they have also entered into a live-in relationship agreement.
• It was argued that, being unhappy thereby, the father of the petitioner constantly threatened them with violence, due to which they were apprehensive of harm being caused to them.
• He further submitted that the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution was under jeopardy, and as such, they are entitled for protection.