The Uttarakhand High Court reprimanded a runaway couple who married against family wishes but directed police protection. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal heard the case involving an 18-year-old woman and 21-year-old man facing threats from her relatives.
UTTARAKHAND: The Uttarakhand High Court reprimanded a runaway couple who had wed against their families’ wishes, while also instructing the police to protect them.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal heard the case involving an 18-year-old woman and a 21-year-old man who had recently married at a temple. The court was informed that the woman’s relatives disapproved of the marriage and had been issuing threats to the couple.
The bench questioned whether parents should have no influence over their children’s marital choices, even when those children are adults.
The court remarked,
“What kind of marriage is this? Just because they are major, they will do anything? The parents who birthed them will have no say? They first don’t ask those who brought them up and then file a petition accusing them of threats. Dismissed! Where is the society going? Mother and father have birthed them, yet their wishes don’t matter,”
The judges suggested that the couple should return to their families instead of seeking help from the court.
The judge said,
“Go ask your parents first. They gave birth to you and brought you up with such hardships, and now they are your enemy? You have threat perception and want us to direct the police to arrest parents because you have to marry? Dismiss with costs of Rs 10 Lakhs! … Why have they come here? Go to your parents? There is no place here for those who don’t respect their parents. Make your own arrangements, take care of your safety because the law cannot support such people,”
Much of the court’s remarks to the couple’s lawyer were made in Hindi.
At one point, the court briefly adjourned to obtain the woman’s mother’s phone number, expressing a desire to speak with her.
The judge said,
“We will talk to your mother and at least tell her that her daughter is here. What if tomorrow she asks, how we granted permission [approval for marriage]?”
The court also noted surprise at the woman’s education level, which was reported as up to Class XI, and was told that her husband works for a private company.
Ultimately, although the court did not speak to the woman’s parents, it held that given the couple’s ages and their marriage, state authorities must safeguard them.
The petition was disposed of with instructions for the police to evaluate the couple’s threat perception and take necessary measures to protect their life and liberty. The court also directed police to warn the woman’s parents against taking the law into their own hands.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE