1. The case of the petitioners is that they are major and were having a love affair. The parents of the petitioners came to know about the love affair
between the petitioners, to which respondent No.5 (father of petitioner No.1) strongly objected the said relationship. Petitioner No.1 tried to persuade
respondent No.5 but respondent No.5 asked petitioner No.1 to prepare herself to get married with the boy of his own choice as well as per the choice
of other family members. It is further stated in the petition that petitioner No.2 also approached respondent No.5 to accept the proposal of marriage as
both the petitioners cannot live without each other. But all his efforts went in vain. Both petitioners belong to same religion.
2. Constrained by the above mentioned situation both the petitioners being major and capable of understanding their well-being, on 15.03.2019 entered
into Marriage Agreement which is duly attested by Notary Public Jammu as is evident from Annexure-III. Thereafter, petitioners also solemnized
marriage as per Muslim Law as is evident from Nikah Nama (Annexure-IV), out of free will, pressure, coercion and undue influence from any
quarter. After the solemnization of the marriage between the petitioners, petitioner No.1 joined the company of petitioner No.2 as his legally wedded
wife. As the said marriage was against the wishes of parents of petitioner No.1, respondent No.5 started extending threats to the lives of the
petitioners particularly to the live of petitioner No.2 that if he will not break marital ties with petitioner No.1, he will be eliminated. Respondent No.5
has openly declared that he will not allow petitioner No.1 to live with petitioner No.2 as she has solemnized marriage against his wishes. The
petitioners are innocent and have solemnized the marriage with their own choice. The movements of the petitioners have been restricted in view of the
continuous harassment and threat perception at the hands of respondent No.5 and his family members as they are bent upon to harass the petitioners
and to involve the petitioner No.2 in a false and frivolous case with the help of respondent No.4.
3. They have proceeded to state that their movement has been restricted due to the continuous harassment meted out to them at the hands of
respondent No.5 and his family members. They have also stated that the threat perception looms large on their heads, as the respondent No.5 and his
family members have openly declared that they will do away with their lives.
4. The petitioners, in person, appeared before this court at the time of hearing of the petition along with their counsel. They have categorically stated in
the open Court that they have solemnized marriage with each other on 15.03.2019 with their own free will and consent, and without any force from
anybody. They have also executed marriage agreement on 15.03.2019.
5. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioners, has stated that the petitioners would be satisfied, if this petition is disposed of at
this stage by directing official respondents to provide adequate protection from the harassment at the hands of respondent No.5 and his family
members.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a photo-copy of the Aadhar Card issued by the Govt. of India in respect of petitioner
No.2, wherein date of birth of petitioner No.2 is shown as 02.02.1996. The same is taken on record.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. From bare perusal of the petition, it is evident that petition has been supported by an affidavit. The petitioners have placed on record photo-copy of
Aadhar Card issued by the Govt. of India, wherein the date of birth of petitioner No.1 & 2 is shown as 15.01.2000 and 02.02.1996 respectively.
Marriage has been solemnized on 15.03.2019 as is evident from Annexure-IV. So petitioners were major at the time of solemnization of marriage.
9. In similar circumstances where parties had entered into wedlock of their own free will and volition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh v.
State of UP and anr, AIR 2006 SC 2522 has held as under:
“14. This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence
she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any
other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the
petitioner, her husband or her husband’s relatives…………………………………….
……………………………………………………..
17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be
united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying
the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste
marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are
wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he
or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter caste or inter religious marriage the maximum
they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence
and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities
throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter religious marriage with a woman or man who is
a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits
acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further
stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.â€
10. In Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K. M. & Ors. reported in AIR 2018 SC 1933, it has also been held that:-
“20. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights underscores the fundamental importance of marriage as an incident of human liberty:
“Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.â€
21. The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article
21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and
procedurally fair, just and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to
take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness. Matters of belief and faith, including whether to believe are at the core of constitutional
liberty. The Constitution exists for believers as well as for agnostics. The Constitution protects the ability of each individual to pursue a way of life or
faith to which she or he seeks to adhere. Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects
of identity. The law may regulate (subject to constitutional compliance) the conditions of a valid marriage, as it may regulate the situations in which a
marital tie can be ended or annulled. These remedies are available to parties to a marriage for it is they who decide best on whether they should
accept each other into a marital tie or continue in that relationship. Society has no role to play in determining our choice of partners.
22. In Justice K S Puttaswamy v Union of India, 2017 (10) SCC ,1 this Court in a decision of nine judges held that the ability to make decisions on
matters close to one’s life is an inviolable aspect of the human personality:
“The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to life… The intersection between one’s mental
integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self-determination… The
family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual.â€
A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No.215 of 2005, held:
“Our autonomy as persons is founded on the ability to decide: on what to wear and how to dress, on what to eat and on the food that we share, on
when to speak and what we speak, on the right to believe or not to believe, on whom to love and whom to partner, and to freely decide on innumerable
matters of consequence and detail to our daily lives.â€
The strength of the Constitution, therefore, lies in the guarantee which it affords that each individual will have a protected entitlement in determining a
choice of partner to share intimacies within or outside marriage.â€
11. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned Dy. AG, is appearing on behalf of the official respondents and states that he has no objection, if the petition is
disposed of at this stage.
12. In view of the above, this petition is, accordingly, disposed of at this stage, with a direction that the official respondent Nos.1 to 4 shall ensure the
protection of lives and liberty of the petitioners and shall take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with the ratio of judgment (supra).
