The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 must be protected at all times, making it clear that such fundamental rights cannot be denied or diluted even when disputes arise regarding the legality of a marriage.
The Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be safeguarded, regardless of any disputes over the legality of a marriage.
This ruling came as it granted protection to a couple who reported threats from family members after they solemnized their marriage, even though the male partner had not reached the legal marriage age.
A Single Judge Bench led by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh accepted the writ petition, allowing the couple to live together peacefully without interference.
The Court also instructed that if any disruptions occur, the couple should approach the Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police, who are obliged to investigate the situation and provide immediate protection.
Importantly, the Court noted that it did not rule on the marriage’s validity and specified that the couple must register their marriage within two months according to the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017, or the protection would lapse.
The background of the case involved the couple’s claim that they were of legal age and married of their own volition, yet faced harassment, particularly from the woman’s father. During its examination of Sections 3 and 12 of the 2006 Act, the Court pointed out that, per Section 3, a child marriage is voidable by the party who was a minor at the time, subject to certain limitations.
Section 12 deems such a marriage void only under specific severe conditions like coercion, trafficking, or unlawful guardianship.
The Court cited precedents indicating that marriages involving an underage party are not automatically void but may be voidable at the discretion of the minor unless the stringent criteria of Section 12 are met.
Furthermore, the Court referenced Supreme Court rulings acknowledging that even if parties are not legally competent to marry, they still possess the right to live together, and live-in relationships are recognized under laws like the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Crucially, the Court affirmed that these proceedings were not intended to decide the marriage’s legality but to address threats to life and liberty. It maintained that constitutional protections under Article 21 are paramount and must be upheld irrespective of marital disputes.
The ruling emphasized the State’s duty to protect the life and liberty of all citizens, clarifying that a partner not reaching the marriageable age does not strip him of his fundamental rights.
The Court also cited landmark Supreme Court decisions that denounce honor-based violence and coercion against consenting couples, asserting that families should not employ threats or coercion merely because they disapprove of a relationship or marriage.
In its decision, the Court carefully weighed competing interests by setting conditions, mandating the marriage’s registration within two months, and clarifying that its ruling should not be interpreted as a validation of the marriage or as hindering lawful actions or investigations. It also granted the right for aggrieved parties to seek a recall of the order if it was obtained through deceit or misrepresentation.
Ultimately, the Court finalized the writ petition while highlighting that protective orders in such scenarios aim only to secure fundamental rights and should not be misconstrued as judicial approval of the marriage’s legality.
Case Title: Smt. Varsha and Anr. v. State of UP & 2 Ors.