Adult’s Right to Marry or Live with a Partner of Choice is Protected Under Article 21: Allahabad High Court

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court recently stated that no one can prevent an adult from going anywhere they wish, staying with a person of their choice, or solemnizing a marriage according to their will, as this right is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In making this observation, a bench consisting of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also criticized a Judicial Magistrate for sending an adult woman (petitioner no. 1) to her uncle’s home after the uncle (respondent no. 3) filed an FIR against her husband (petitioner no. 2).

The Magistrate had sent the woman to her uncle’s home despite her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, in which she expressed fear for her life if sent to her uncle’s or parents’ home.

In its June 7 order, the Court stated that the Judicial Magistrate, before whom petitioner no. 1 claimed she feared for her life due to threats from her uncle (respondent no. 3), was “duty-bound” to register an FIR against the uncle and take adequate measures to ensure the safety and protection of the first petitioner.

Stressing that “honour killing in such matters is not an unknown phenomenon”, the Court added that the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, and the Station House Officer, Police Station-Bansi, District-Siddharth Nagar, were “equally answerable” for not taking action against the woman’s uncle by registering an appropriate FIR and safeguarding the woman’s life and security.

Brief Summary of the Case

The first petitioner, a 21-year-old adult woman, married an adult man of her choice in April 2024 according to Muslim rites. Their marriage was certified by the Telangana State Waqf Board.

Upset with her decision to marry petitioner no. 2, the woman’s uncle filed an FIR against her husband under Section 363 of the IPC. Consequently, the police not only arrested her husband but also took the woman into custody and handed her over to her uncle.

When the police presented the woman before the Magistrate to record her statement under Section 164 CrPC, she clearly stated that she had married petitioner No. 2 by her own choice and that her husband had been falsely implicated.

She also expressed fear for her life due to her uncle’s threats. Despite this, the Magistrate directed that she be sent to her uncle’s home.

Challenging the FIR, the petitioners moved to the High Court.

The Court first noted that both petitioners are adults with the right to live together or solemnize their marriage. Therefore, the woman’s uncle had no right to file the FIR, making all subsequent proceedings “manifestly illegal.”

The Court also criticized the Magistrate’s decision to send the woman back to her uncle’s home, emphasizing that an adult cannot be forced to stay with another person.

In light of these observations, the Court found that the FIR contained uncontroverted allegations that did not constitute a case against the accused, and thus quashed the FIR.

Additionally, the Court issued a mandamus to the S.P. Siddharthnagar and the Station House Officer, Police Station-Bansi, District-Siddharthnagar, ensuring that the woman could go wherever she wished and stay with whomever she wanted, without any interference from her uncle or other family members.

The Court also directed the officers to ensure that her uncle or any other family member does not harm her in any way.