The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has disposed of a writ petition filed by a married couple seeking protection from harassment and interference in their marital life. The Court directed that the petitioners are at liberty to live together as a married couple and instructed police authorities to provide immediate protection if their peaceful living is disturbed. However, the Court conditioned this protection on the registration of their marriage within two months.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Kajal and another, moved the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh and other respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life and to provide them with protection. According to the petitioners, they are both majors and solemnized their marriage on February 10, 2026, as per rites and customs.
The counsel for the petitioners asserted that this was their first marriage, entered into with free consent and without duress on any party. They further claimed that no FIR had been registered against them in respect of the marriage. The petitioners alleged they were being threatened and harassed by respondents for the reason of having thus got married.
Arguments Presented
The learned counsel for the petitioners, Jay Prakash Pandey, Sudhanshu Tiwari, and Umesh Chandra Tiwari, argued that as major individuals, the petitioners have the right to marry whomever they choose and live together without harassment.
On behalf of the State, Sri Prabhas Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, contended that the observations and directions issued by the Supreme Court regarding such matters are already being enforced in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He argued that no further specific direction was required at this stage as the petitioners’ claims were based on a “mere apprehension” that the private respondents might commit acts of violence or harassment.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Precedents
The Court, presided over by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, referred to landmark Supreme Court judgments concerning the rights of major individuals to marry by choice and the prevention of “honour killings.”
The Court cited Lata Singh vs. State of UP (2006), where the Apex Court observed:
“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… 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.”
The Court also referred to Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011), noting paragraph 28:
“We have held in Lata Singh case that there is nothing ‘honourable’ in ‘honour’ killings, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted persons with feudal minds. In our opinion honour killings… come within the category of the rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation.”
The Decision
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- Right to Cohabit: The petitioners are at liberty to live together as a married couple, and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living.
- Police Protection: In case of any disturbance, the petitioners shall approach the Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police concerned with a copy of the order. The authority will examine the matter and provide immediate protection. The police must also ensure that “an innocent person should not be harassed or humiliated” if they have not caused hindrance to the couple.
- Registration Requirement: The marriage dated February 10, 2026, must be registered within two months from the date of the order (March 20, 2026) in accordance with the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017.
- Conditional Protection: The Court explicitly stated that if the petitioners fail to get the marriage registered within the stipulated time, “the protection granted herein would cease to operate.”
The Court clarified that it has not adjudicated the validity of the marriage, the genuineness of the marriage certificate, or the correct age of the petitioners. It further noted that this order does not protect the petitioners against any legal proceedings instituted in accordance with the law and would not come in the way of any pending investigation.
Case Details:
- Case: Kajal And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others
- Case No: WRIT-C No. 10633 of 2026
- Judge: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
- Date: March 20, 2026
