Marital status no bar: Delhi High Court backs ‘right to life’, protects live-in couple facing threats

Primacy of personal liberty

The Delhi High Court emphasised that constitutional guarantees under Articles 19 (protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) extend equally to all citizens, irrespective of their marital status.

It observed, “Since the petitioners are both Indian national citizens, they are well and truly entitled to the protection as available to them in the form of the guarantees and fundamental right(s), enshrined under Article(s) 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”

Reinforcing this position, the bench held that consenting adults are entitled to protection of their life and liberty, particularly when credible threats are alleged.

Background: Relationship amid allegations of abuse

The petitioners approached the Delhi High Court seeking police protection against threats from the woman’s husband and family members.

According to the submissions before the court, the woman had been subjected to humiliation and torture by her husband since 2016. Eventually, she left the matrimonial home and began residing with the co-petitioner in a live-in relationship in Hyderabad from February 25, of her own free will.

However, the couple alleged that their relationship triggered hostility from the woman’s family and husband, who allegedly attempted to track them down and intimidate them. Fearing for their safety, the couple relocated to Delhi on March 3.

Alleged threats, harassment, police inaction

The petitioners claimed that threats extended beyond verbal intimidation. Family members were allegedly pressuring acquaintances and employers to locate the couple, raising serious concerns about their safety.

They also informed the Delhi High Court that representations seeking protection were submitted to authorities on March 11, 2026, but no effective action was taken, prompting them to seek judicial intervention.

State assures assistance, court grants protection

Additional Standing Counsel Yasir Rauf Ansari, appearing for the state, assured the court that the Delhi Police was prepared to provide necessary assistance and protection to the petitioners.

Accepting this submission, the Delhi High Court directed that the couple be allowed to contact local police officials, including the station house officer (SHO) and beat constables of the concerned jurisdiction, whenever required.

The high court further directed that law enforcement authorities must take “all possible steps” to ensure the safety and protection of the petitioners in accordance with the law.

Marital status no barrier to protection

A key aspect of the judgment was the Delhi High Court’s categorical rejection of moral or social objections based on the petitioners’ marital status.

Both individuals were already married to different partners and had children from those marriages. Despite this, the court made it clear that such circumstances cannot be grounds to deny them protection under the Constitution.

The court refrained from examining the legality or validity of the couple’s private arrangement, including a memorandum of understanding (MoU) executed between them on March 11, noting that such issues were not relevant to the immediate question of protection.

Guidelines for continued protection

The Delhi High Court also laid down practical safeguards to ensure continued protection for the couple. It directed that if the petitioners relocate to another jurisdiction, they must inform the local police within three days and share their contact details.

Correspondingly, the police in the new jurisdiction would be obligated to provide protection as required.

Significance of ruling

The ruling adds to a growing body of jurisprudence that places individual autonomy and personal liberty at the forefront, especially in cases involving relationships that fall outside traditional societal norms.

By explicitly stating that marital status is irrelevant to the protection of fundamental rights, the Delhi High Court has reinforced that constitutional guarantees cannot be curtailed by social disapproval or familial pressure.