In a significant judgment reinforcing individual autonomy and constitutional rights, the Delhi High Court has ruled that consenting adults do not require the approval of society, the state, or even their own parents when it comes to choosing a life partner. The Court emphasized that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is an integral part of 'Personal Liberty' protected under the Constitution of India.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while presiding over the case, observed that once two individuals reach the age of majority and decide to enter into the sacred bond of marriage, no external entity has the legal right to create hurdles in their journey.

The ruling came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by a young married couple seeking police protection. The petitioners, both adults, had solemnized their marriage in July 2025 at an Arya Samaj Temple according to Hindu rites and rituals. Their union was subsequently registered with the competent government authority.

However, their decision was met with stiff opposition from the woman’s family. The couple approached the High Court alleging that they were receiving constant threats from the woman’s father (Respondent No. 7). Fearing for their lives and safety, they sought the Court's intervention to ensure they could live together without fear of coercive action or physical harm.

The High Court delved deep into the constitutional spirit of the right to life. Justice Banerjee reiterated that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to every citizen.

"The right to marry is an incident of human liberty and is a matter of one's choice," the Court remarked. It further noted that this right is not just a domestic legal standard but is also underscored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Court held that the sanctity of a decision made by two consenting adults must be respected. When two individuals who are legally capable of giving consent decide to walk the path of life together, the law must stand by them as a shield against societal or familial pressure.

One of the most powerful observations in the judgment was regarding the role of society and parents in the personal lives of adult children. The Court stated that while parents often feel they have a say in their children’s marriages, the law prioritizes the individual’s choice once they are majors.

Justice Banerjee stated:

“Since the petitioners herein are both major and are well within their rights to marry each other... no one, much less the Society, the State machinery or even their parents/relatives/friends can cause interference to the decision of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever from now on.”

The Court made it clear that "social approval" is not a legal prerequisite for a valid marriage. If the law allows two people to marry, the disapproval of their community or family cannot be used as a tool to threaten their safety.

Recognizing the genuine threat to the petitioners' lives, the High Court directed the Delhi Police to provide necessary protection to the couple. The Court issued the following directions:

The Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned area must ensure the safety of the couple.
The couple is permitted to directly contact the SHO or beat officers whenever they feel threatened.
If the couple changes their residence, they must inform the local police to ensure the safety net remains intact.

The Court also noted that the woman’s father cannot be allowed to threaten the life and liberty of the petitioners simply because he disagrees with their choice.

This judgment serves as a vital precedent in a country where "honor" often trumps "choice." By explicitly stating that even parents cannot interfere with the lives of consenting adults, the Delhi High Court has sent a strong message against the culture of moral policing and familial control.

The ruling aligns with several landmark Supreme Court judgments, such as Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Hadiya Case) and Lata Singh v. State of UP, which have consistently held that the right to choose a partner is a fundamental right.

The Delhi High Court’s stance is a victory for individual freedom. It reminds us that in a democratic society governed by the Rule of Law, the "sacred thread of marriage" is tied by the consent of the two individuals involved, and not by the permission of their relatives or the society at large.

For young couples facing similar threats, this judgment provides the legal ammunition needed to stand up for their rights and live a life of dignity and security.

Case Title: Laxmi Devi & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors.
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Date of Order: February 5, 2026