The Allahabad High Court has cancelled a criminal case registered against a man by his wife’s father, reprimanding police for interfering in a consensual marriage between two educated adults and imposing monetary penalties on both the investigating officers and the woman’s father.
A division bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena directed the Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer concerned to jointly pay Rs 1,000 to the woman. Additionally, the court ordered her father to pay her Rs 5,000, ruling that law enforcement had no authority to probe a lawful union and was wasting state resources.
In its July 25 order, the court observed that police officers were acting as nosy parkers by scrutinizing a legitimate marriage instead of focusing on actual criminal offenses. The justices noted that continuing a criminal investigation into an adult citizen’s voluntary choice of a spouse represents an abuse of the legal process and a direct violation of fundamental rights to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background of the Dispute
The case stems from a February wedding at the Arya Vedic Sabha in Prayagraj, where the woman, aged between 27 and 28, married her partner of one year according to Hindu rites. Both partners are highly educated, holding Master of Science degrees and Basic Training Certificates, with the husband working as a primary school assistant teacher.
After the woman disclosed the marriage to her family in April, her father lodged a criminal complaint against her husband. The woman subsequently submitted a police complaint stating that her father and brother had beaten her, threatened her life, and sought to forcibly separate the couple through illegal detention in collusion with local authorities.
Court Disapproves of Police Persistence
The High Court expressed sharp criticism over the law enforcement response, highlighting that the local Superintendent of Police insisted on continuing the probe despite a previous court order issued on April 29, 2026, and recorded statements from the couple confirming their mutual consent.
The bench concluded that the police had improperly sided with the father, reiterating that adult citizens possess the constitutional right to marry without state interference or family opposition.
