The Court directed Delhi Police to ensure safety of a couple that had eloped and married against family wishes.
The Delhi High Court recently instructed the Delhi Police to ensure protection for a couple who claimed they were threatened after marrying against the woman’s family’s wishes [Prince Tyagi and Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.].
Justice Sanjeev Narula underscored that family disapproval cannot curtail the autonomy of two consenting adults in selecting each other as life partners—a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this position and directed the police to safeguard such couples from intimidation or harm,” the Court stated.
The couple moved the Court claiming that the woman’s family had threatened their lives through messages, phone calls, and video calls.
At the same time, her family had filed a missing person complaint. However, a preliminary police inquiry revealed that she had voluntarily left her parental home to marry.
After considering the submissions, the Court directed the Delhi Police to extend protection to the couple by deploying beat officers to ensure their safety.
“As regards the Petitioners’ apprehension of threats, Respondent No. 1 (Delhi police/ State of Delhi) shall ensure adequate protection. The SHO of the concerned police station shall designate a beat officer, sensitise him/her to the present order, and furnish to the Petitioners, the mobile numbers of the beat officer and the station’s 24×7 contact. Upon any complaint of threat, the police shall promptly enter a DD entry and extend immediate assistance. For coordination, counsel for the Petitioners shall share the Petitioners’ current
place of residence and contact details with the Investigating Officer, today itself,” the Court stated in its August 5 order.
