The Allahabad High Court has strongly condemned familial resistance to an adult woman’s choice of marriage, calling such objections “despicable” and a violation of her fundamental rights under the Constitution. The court emphasized that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is protected by Article 21 — the right to life and personal liberty.
A division bench comprising Justices J J Munir and Praveen Kumar Giri passed the remarks while hearing a petition filed by the woman’s father and brother, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against them at Chilh police station in Mirzapur. The FIR, filed by the 27-year-old woman, alleged that her family members threatened to abduct her and prevent her from marrying a man of her choice. She invoked several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Section 140(3) (abduction) and Section 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace).
In its order dated June 13, the court stated:
“It is despicable that the petitioners should object to the decision of an adult member of the family, a woman 27 years of age, about marrying a man of her choice. At least that is the right which every adult has under the Constitution by virtue of Article 21.”
While the court clarified that it was not determining whether the petitioners actually intended to abduct the woman, it took note of the broader societal problem — the conflict between constitutional values and prevailing social norms.
“The fact that there is social and familial resistance to the exercise of such right is a glaring depiction of the ‘value gap’ between the constitutional norms and those social. So long as there is a gap between the values fostered by the Constitution and those cherished by the society, these kinds of incidents would continue to happen,” the bench observed.
The court provided protection to the woman and issued clear directions restraining the petitioners — her father and brother — from making any contact with her or the man she intends to marry. This includes contacting her via phone, internet, or through associates. The police were also directed not to interfere with the woman’s liberty in any manner.
While the court granted a stay on the arrest of the petitioners, it fixed the next date of hearing for July 18 and granted time to the state counsel and the woman to file their counter-affidavits.
