The Uttarakhand High Court reaffirms Supreme Court precedent by holding that consenting adult couples, though facing familial and societal hostility, are entitled to police protection for their life and liberty; follows and applies the binding authority of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006). This judgment fortifies the precedent, making it binding on all subordinate courts in Uttarakhand in matters of matrimonial autonomy and associated protective remedies.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCRL/1358/2025 of Khushi and Anr vs State of Uttarakhand |
| CNR | UKHC010171412025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G. NARENDAR (per curiam, concurrence by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY) |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR and HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand; persuasive outside the State |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) |
| Type of Law | Constitutional, Criminal—protection of life and liberty under Article 21, writ jurisdiction (protection from familial threat) |
| Questions of Law | Are adult, consenting couples entitled to State protection from familial threats when their marriage is opposed by relatives? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that where two adults have married of their own free will and face threats to their life and limb from family due to such marriage, they are entitled to adequate State protection. The right to choose a life partner is an essential part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The SHO must assess any threat and provide necessary protection. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., reiterating that familial opposition does not negate the right of adult couples to State protection. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Constitutional right to life and personal liberty under Article 21; Supreme Court’s directive to protect autonomy of adult couples. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Both petitioners are adults who married with mutual consent, face threats from the first petitioner’s family, and sought police protection alleging apprehension to life and liberty. Marriage was performed on 26.10.2025, evidenced by certificate and photographs provided to the Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and can be cited before the Supreme Court |
| Follows | Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that adult couples entering into marriage of consent, despite familial hostility, have a justiciable right to State protection for life and liberty.
- Mandates local police to actually assess and act on threat to such couples, not merely acknowledge complaints.
- Directs counseling of hostile relatives by the police as a remedial and preventive legal measure.
- Lawyers can use this ruling to secure immediate judicial directions for protective police involvement in similar cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered whether adult petitioners, married by mutual consent and facing threats from family, are entitled to protection.
- Observed from the record (documents, photographs, marriage certificate) that both petitioners are majors and have performed a legally valid marriage.
- Relied squarely on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), which establishes the obligation of the State to protect adult couples exercising their lawful right to marry.
- Held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is protected under Article 21.
- Directed the local police (SHO) to objectively assess any actual threat, provide requisite protection if necessary, and to counsel hostile relatives in accordance with law.
- The court did not introduce new doctrine but reaffirmed and applied established precedent, ensuring its procedural implementation at the local level.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Both are adults belonging to the same community and have mutually chosen to marry.
- Facing serious threats to life and limb from the first petitioner’s relatives due to opposition to the marriage.
- Sought protection of life and liberty due to imminent threat.
Respondent (State)
- Confirmed that both petitioners are majors and have performed their marriage.
- Did not contest the facts but provided the Court with verification of marriage and identities.
Factual Background
The petitioners, both adults and belonging to the same community, developed mutual affection culminating in marriage on 26.10.2025 (evidenced by Arya Samaj Mandir marriage certificate and photographs). After their marriage, they began living together. The first petitioner’s family and relatives strongly objected to the union and issued threats to their safety. The petitioners approached the Court under writ jurisdiction seeking police protection citing apprehension to their life and liberty.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 21 of the Constitution: The right to life and personal liberty includes the right of consenting adults to marry a person of their choice.
- The Court exercised powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure constitutional and legal protection.
- No criminal charges or sections were invoked; the plea was for protection against threats.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion is recorded; both judges (Chief Justice G. Narendar and Justice Subhash Upadhyay) concurred in the reasoning and final order.
Procedural Innovations
- Directed the local Station House Officer (SHO) not only to provide protection upon finding a threat but also to summon hostile family members and counsel them. This enhances preventive remedy and community mediation, in addition to protective action.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) was affirmed and implemented.