Introduction:

The case concerning a young couple seeking protection before the Allahabad High Court highlights a deeply rooted social conflict between individual autonomy and societal notions of “honour.” The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, who were called upon to address the urgent plea of two consenting adults who had solemnized their marriage of their own free will but were facing serious threats from the woman’s family.

The petitioners approached the Court under extraordinary circumstances, fearing for their lives and liberty after their marriage, which had been solemnized at an Arya Samaj Temple and duly registered under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. Despite the legality of their union, the couple alleged that the woman’s family strongly opposed the marriage and had gone to the extent of lodging a criminal case against the husband under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), accusing him of kidnapping and inducing marriage.

The couple contended that the FIR was false and malicious, filed solely to harass them and to disrupt their marital life. More alarmingly, they expressed apprehension of an honour killing, stating that the woman’s family had threatened them due to their decision to marry against familial wishes.

This case thus placed before the High Court critical questions about the protection of personal liberty, the misuse of criminal law to settle personal scores, and the duty of the State to safeguard citizens against threats—even when such threats emanate from their own families.

The Court’s observations and interim directions in this matter reaffirm constitutional values of individual choice, dignity, and freedom, while also addressing the harsh realities of honour-based violence that continues to persist in parts of society.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners presented a compelling case centered on their fundamental right to choose their life partner and live peacefully without fear or coercion.

At the outset, they asserted that both of them were adults and had entered into the marriage voluntarily, without any force, fraud, or undue influence. They emphasized that their marriage was legally valid, having been solemnized at an Arya Samaj Temple and subsequently registered in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. To substantiate their claim, they produced the marriage registration certificate before the Court.

The petitioners strongly denied the allegations made in the FIR registered under Section 87 BNS, which deals with kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel her marriage. They argued that the FIR was entirely baseless and had been lodged by the woman’s family as a retaliatory measure against their lawful marriage. According to them, the criminal proceedings were nothing more than a tool of harassment and intimidation.

A central aspect of their plea was the imminent threat to their lives. The petitioners submitted a joint affidavit expressing a genuine and well-founded apprehension that the woman’s family might resort to honour killing. They described the hostility and aggression displayed by the family members, which had compelled them to seek protection from the Court.

The petitioners further argued that their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was being jeopardized. They contended that the State has a constitutional obligation to protect citizens from threats to their safety, regardless of the source of such threats.

They also highlighted the broader social issue of honour-based violence, pointing out that many couples in similar situations face severe consequences for exercising their right to choose a partner. In this context, they urged the Court to not only grant them immediate protection but also to send a strong message against such practices.

In essence, the petitioners sought judicial intervention to ensure their safety, prevent their arrest in a false criminal case, and allow them to live their married life without interference or fear.

Arguments of the Respondents:

At the stage of interim hearing, detailed arguments from the respondents—primarily the woman’s family—were yet to be placed on record, as the Court had issued notice and granted them time to file a counter-affidavit. However, the circumstances of the case and the registration of the FIR indicate the likely stance of the respondents.

The woman’s family, by lodging the FIR under Section 87 BNS, appeared to assert that the marriage was not consensual and that the woman had been induced or coerced into it. Such allegations are often made in cases where families oppose a marriage, particularly when it involves inter-caste, inter-religious, or socially disapproved unions.

The respondents likely intended to portray the husband as having wrongfully taken away or influenced the woman, thereby justifying the criminal proceedings. This narrative is commonly employed to regain control over the situation and to invalidate the marriage.

Additionally, the family’s opposition to the marriage suggests a strong adherence to traditional notions of honour and social norms. In many such cases, families perceive the independent choices of their children—especially daughters—as a challenge to their authority and social standing.

While the respondents’ detailed arguments were yet to be formally presented, the Court was cognizant of the broader context in which such disputes arise and the potential for misuse of legal provisions to exert pressure on consenting couples.

Court’s Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court, at the very outset, recognized the seriousness of the matter and the need for immediate intervention to protect the petitioners’ rights and safety.

The Bench made a significant and emphatic observation that no individual has the right to turn the personal choice of a consenting adult into an issue of honour. This statement strikes at the heart of honour-based violence and reinforces the principle that individual autonomy cannot be subordinated to societal or familial expectations.

The Court noted that a prima facie case had been made out by the petitioners, particularly in light of the marriage certificate and the joint affidavit expressing fear of harm. It acknowledged that the petitioners were adults who had exercised their free will in entering into the marriage, and that their decision deserved protection under the law.

In a strong assertion of constitutional values, the Court emphasized the duty of the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens—even when the threat comes from within the family. This observation underscores the fundamental principle that the State must act as a guardian of individual rights, irrespective of social or cultural pressures.

As an interim measure, the Court granted protection to the petitioners by directing that they shall not be arrested in connection with the FIR. This provided immediate relief to the couple, shielding them from potential harassment and misuse of the criminal justice system.

The Court also issued explicit directions to the woman’s family members, restraining them from causing any harm to the petitioners, entering their matrimonial home, or attempting to contact them directly or through electronic means. This comprehensive protection order was aimed at preventing any form of intimidation or interference.

Further, the Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, to ensure the safety of the petitioners and to take necessary steps to prevent any harm to them. This directive placed a clear responsibility on the local administration to actively safeguard the couple.

The Court also issued notice to the respondents and granted them two weeks’ time to file their counter-affidavit, thereby ensuring that the matter would be adjudicated after hearing both sides.

The matter was listed for further hearing on April 8, indicating that the Court would continue to monitor the situation and take appropriate action based on the developments.

Overall, the Court’s interim order reflects a balanced approach—providing immediate protection to the petitioners while preserving the opportunity for the respondents to present their case. At the same time, the strong observations made by the Bench send a clear message against honour-based violence and the misuse of legal processes.