New Delhi, Oct 29: Consent of the family, community or clan is not necessary once two adults agree to marry, and it is the couple’s consent that has to be “piously given primacy”, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has said while directing the authorities to provide security to a married couple who feared violence and harassment from their relatives after their marriage.
Justice Shahzad Azeem was hearing a petition filed by a man and a woman seeking protection from the Jammu and Kashmir administration and other respondents. The couple claimed they had married of their own free will but feared for their safety because their relatives opposed the marriage.
“Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their (couple’s) consent has to be piously given primacy… When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognised under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution,” the court said on October 23.
“Such right has sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognised, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class honour or group thinking,” it observed, adding that “dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice and no one shall be permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice,” it added.
The petitioners told the court that they were living as husband and wife after their marriage on March 8, 2024, according to Hindu rituals and traditions. The court directed the authorities to provide them adequate security, subject to verification of their ages and whether the marriage had been solemnised in accordance with the applicable laws. It also clarified that the order did not authenticate the marriage or conclusively establish their legal eligibility to marry.
Couple feared harassment
The petitioners approached the high court claiming that both were adults, had married of their free will and were living together as husband and wife. They apprehended physical violence and harassment from their relatives, including those named as respondents in the petition, because the marriage had taken place against the relatives’ wishes. They sought protection and security from the official respondents, asking the court to intervene to safeguard their lives and liberty.
The court examined the documents submitted with the petition, including Aadhaar cards and Class 10 marksheet issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education. According to these records, the woman’s date of birth was March 26, 1998, making her 28 years old, while the other petitioner’s date of birth was October 10, 1992, making him 34. The documents indicated that both were adults. The court also noted that the marriage took place on March 8, 2024, according to Hindu rituals and traditions.
Right to choose partner protected by Constitution
Emphasising that dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice, the court said that no one shall be permitted to interfere in the fructification of this choice. It said, “If right to express one’s own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness.”
It said that once this right was recognised, it had to be protected and could not be allowed to give way to notions of class honour or collective thinking. “…dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice and no one shall be permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice,” the court observed.
The judge added that constitutional courts had an obligation to guard individual liberty and ensure that a person’s right to live with dignity was not undermined. “When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so. And it can unequivocally be stated that they have the right and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation,” the court said.
It is the obligation of constitutional courts to zealously guard an individual’s right to liberty as the dignified existence of an individual is inseparably tied to their liberty, the court said, adding, “It is emphatically clear that life and liberty sans dignity and choice is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to enter into the constitutional recognition of identity of a person.”
Disposing of the petition, the high court directed the official respondents to provide adequate security to the couple and act in accordance with principles laid down by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments concerning adult choice in marriage and protection from family or community interference.
The direction was subject to the authorities verifying whether both petitioners were adults and whether the marriage had been solemnised in strict accordance with the applicable laws. The court also clarified that if a First Information Report (FIR) had been registered against either petitioner, the police could proceed with the investigation in accordance with the rules.–(The Indian Express)
