The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the consent of two adults is sufficient for them to choose each other as life partners, and neither family approval nor community acceptance is necessary for their marriage. The Court directed the authorities to ensure the safety of a married couple who approached it fearing violence and harassment from relatives opposed to their relationship.
Justice Shahzad Azeem, in an order dated October 23, emphasised that the freedom to choose a life partner enjoys constitutional protection under Articles 19 and 21. The Court observed that individual liberty and dignity cannot be compromised to accommodate notions of family honour, social expectations or collective opinion.
The ruling came on a petition filed by a couple who claimed to have married voluntarily on March 8, 2024, in accordance with Hindu rituals and traditions.
Individual Choice Cannot Be Subordinated to Family Honour
The High Court held that when two adults voluntarily decide to marry, their decision must receive primacy over objections from relatives or the wider community.
Justice Azeem observed that the constitutional recognition of personal choice carries a corresponding obligation to protect individuals against interference in exercising that freedom.
The Court said that the right to choose a life partner cannot be defeated by considerations of class honour or group thinking. It further emphasised that personal dignity remains inseparable from the freedom to make decisions concerning one’s own life.
According to the Court, preventing individuals from exercising their choice would undermine the constitutional protection of dignity and liberty.
The judge also stressed that constitutional courts have a duty to safeguard individual freedom and prevent interference with decisions made voluntarily by consenting adults.
The Court observed that adults who marry of their own volition are entitled to determine the course of their relationship, and any infringement of that right amounts to a constitutional violation.
Couple Approached Court Fearing Violence From Relatives
The petitioners informed the High Court that they had been living together as husband and wife following their marriage on March 8, 2024.
They maintained that both had attained the legal age for marriage and had entered into the relationship voluntarily.
However, they expressed apprehension that relatives who disapproved of the marriage, including persons named as respondents in the proceedings, might subject them to physical violence or harassment.
Seeking protection of their lives and personal liberty, the couple requested directions to the Jammu and Kashmir administration and other official respondents to provide adequate security.
The Court examined the identity and educational documents placed on record, including Aadhaar cards and a Class 10 marksheet issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education.
The documents recorded the woman’s date of birth as March 26, 1998, and the man’s as October 10, 1992. Their respective ages were 28 and 34 years, indicating that both petitioners were adults.
High Court Directs Authorities to Provide Security
While disposing of the petition, the High Court directed the official respondents to provide adequate security to the couple in accordance with the principles established by the Supreme Court in earlier decisions concerning the freedom of adults to marry and protection against family or community interference.
However, the Court made the protection directions conditional upon verification of the petitioners’ ages and whether their marriage had been solemnised in strict compliance with applicable laws.
Justice Azeem clarified that the order should not be treated as judicial authentication of the marriage or as a conclusive determination of the petitioners’ legal eligibility to marry.
The Court further stated that if any FIR had been registered against either petitioner, the police would remain free to conduct an investigation in accordance with the applicable rules.
The High Court reiterated that constitutional courts must protect individual liberty because the right to live with dignity is inseparably connected with the freedom to make personal choices.
