The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ruled that the constitutional right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal and must be protected regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage/nikah, or even the complete absence of any marriage/nikah between the parties.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh granted protection to an adult couple seeking a mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful life, emphasizing that since both individuals are majors, they are legally entitled to live together of their own free will and the state must protect them even if the validity of their marriage is disputed.
Background of the Case
The petitioners and her partner, approached the High Court seeking protection for their life and liberty. They asserted that they had attained the age of majority and had solemnized their marriage (nikah) of their own free will and accord. However, they alleged that they were facing constant harassment and threats from the woman’s father (Respondent No. 3), who was actively creating hindrances in their peaceful life.
To establish their majority, the petitioners submitted educational certificates. According to her High School Examination Certificate, the date of birth of the first petitioner is October 22, 2003, and she was a regular B.Sc. Second Year student. For the second petitioner, the educational certificate recorded his date of birth as May 3, 1999.
The petitioners contended that as consenting adults under the Indian Majority Act, they were legally capable of choosing their partner. They appended a copy of their Nikahnama, and noted that they had applied online for the registration of their marriage. The first petitioner had previously moved an application seeking police protection on November 26, 2025.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioners: The learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sanjay Singh, argued that because both petitioners were majors, they had the legal capacity to marry of their own free will. The marriage/nikah took place on April 24, 2024 (also referred to as April 24, 2025, in parts of the record). The petitioners argued that the Nikahnama was a valid and genuine document.
Regarding the objection that the female petitioner was not physically present in India when the nikah took place, the counsel argued that the nikah was performed through video conferencing, during which she accepted the marriage on a video call from Dubai. The counsel asserted that physical presence is not an absolute requirement for a valid nikah, and that she signed the Nikahnama upon her return to India.
For the Respondents: Conversely, the learned counsel for the woman’s father (Respondent No. 3) and Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, vehemently opposed the petitioners’ prayer. They contended that the nikah was invalid and could not be recognized.
They submitted that on the alleged date of the nikah (April 24, 2025), the female petitioner was in Dubai, residing there from January 23, 2025, to May 21, 2025, as evidenced by a photocopy of her passport. The state-respondents submitted that the Qazi and other witnesses admitted the female petitioner was in Dubai at the time of the nikah, though they claimed the ceremony was conducted over a video call. A report dated January 24, 2026, by the District Magistrate, Rampur, acknowledged that the petitioner was seen in a video, but noted that the authenticity of the video was not verified.
Court’s Analysis: Liberty Standalone from Marriage Validity
The Court first adverted to the facts and the physical appearance of the female petitioner, who had appeared before the Court on December 17, 2025. She had confirmed her majority and stated that she accepted her nikah with the second petitioner, which was performed via video conferencing while she resided in Dubai, and that she signed the Nikahnama after returning to India. She also stated in open court that she faced a threat to her life from her father.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that the Court was not examining the validity or genuineness of the Nikahnama at this stage, as the core issue before the court was the immediate protection of the life and liberty of the petitioners.
The Court observed:
“Admittedly, both the petitioners are majors and competent to act of their own free will and be held responsible for their acts, thus, the respondent no.3 cannot interfere in their married life even if they have not performed a valid nikah or they are living together in a live-in-relationship.”
Emphasizing the primacy of Article 21, the Court remarked:
“I have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or a void marriage/nikah or even the absence of any marriage/nikah between the parties.”
The Court further noted that even if the documentation was suspect, it could not extinguish their constitutional protections:
“The mere fact that Nikahnama appears to be a suspicious document would not deprive the petitioners of their fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizen of India.”
Previous Case Law Cited by the Court
To support its reasoning, the Court relied extensively on several landmark judgments of the Supreme Court of India:
- Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. and Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 368: The Court noted that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is an integral part of Article 21. It quoted the Supreme Court’s observation that:
“Non-acceptance of her choice would simply mean creating discomfort to the constitutional right by a Constitutional Court which is meant to be the protector of fundamental rights… The social values and morals have their space but they are not above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom.” The Court also quoted Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s observation from the same judgment, stating, “Neither the state nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters. They form the essence of personal liberty under the Constitution.” - Ummu Sabeena vs. State of Kerala and Others (2011) 10 SCC 781: Cited regarding the sacred duty of judges to safeguard individual liberty under a written Constitution and through writs such as habeas corpus.
- Soni Gerry v Gerry Douglas (2018) 2 SCC 197: The Court highlighted the significance of attaining majority, quoting the Supreme Court’s observation:
“The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation.” - Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192: Strongly deprecating “honour killings,” the Court quoted:
“The choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice… When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship… and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation.” - KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1: Cited to highlight that body and mind autonomy, marriage, family, and sexual orientation are essential subsets of privacy and individual dignity.
- Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018): Mentioned for the proposition that personal autonomy includes the right to choose “whom to love and whom to partner.”
- Lata Singh vs. State of UP (2006) Cr.L.J. 3309 and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396: The Court referred to these directions to highlight the duty of administration and police authorities to ensure consenting adult couples are not subjected to harassment, threats, or acts of violence by disapproving parents.
The Decision
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a directive that the petitioners are at liberty to live together, and no person shall be permitted to interfere with their peaceful living.
The Court ordered:
“In case, any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police concerned with a copy of this order, who will examine the matter and shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.”
The Court further instructed the police authorities to ensure that innocent individuals are not harassed if they have not caused any hindrance to the couple’s peaceful life.
However, the Court explicitly clarified that it has not adjudicated upon the validity of the marriage, the genuineness of the Nikahnama, or the correct age of the petitioners. It was also clarified that the protection order would not shield the petitioners from any legal action or investigation initiated in accordance with the law.
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Sidra Parveen And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
- Case No.: WRIT-C No. 42672 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
- Date: May 14, 2026
