The Delhi High Court, when granting protection to a couple who believed their lives were in danger due to marrying against their family's wishes, emphasized that the right to marry a person of one's choice is a constitutionally protected right in India. Even family members do not have the authority to object to this right.

In a recent ruling, a bench led by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela affirmed that the Court, as a Constitutional Court, is responsible for upholding the constitutional rights of the petitioners. They emphasized that the petitioners' right to marry a person of their own choice is an inherent and constitutionally protected right that cannot be weakened in any way. Simultaneously, the State is constitutionally obligated to ensure the safety of its citizens. It was unequivocally stated that, given that the petitioners are adults and their marriage is a fact, nobody, including their family members, has the authority to object to their relationship or their marital bond.

The current petition was submitted under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in conjunction with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It sought a writ of mandamus, compelling the State to ensure the safety and protection of the petitioners, who entered into a marriage despite their parents' objections.

Based on the details provided, on August 2, 2023, the Court nullified a First Information Report (FIR) that had been registered under Sections 354, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This FIR had been filed by petitioner No.1 (the wife) against petitioner No.2 (the husband). The court's decision was made in light of the wife's statement, where she revealed that she had been coerced by her own family members to file the FIR on unfounded and baseless grounds.

Nevertheless, it was presented as an argument that while the FIR was still pending, the petitioners proceeded to marry on April 5, 2023. Subsequently, they have been living together in a state of contented cohabitation since that time.

Furthermore, it was argued that following the annulment of the FIR, the petitioners have consistently faced threats from their family members, with particular emphasis on the mother of petitioner No.1, and this harassment has persisted up to the present time. The State's counsel, however, contended that the respondents, meaning the parents and other family members of petitioner No.1, have written a letter to the Investigating Officer (I.O.) wherein they have given assurances that they will not harm either of the petitioners. In accordance with the Court's directives, the State has committed to providing adequate protection to the petitioners.

Based on this perspective, the Court has issued a directive, instructing the State to offer protection to both of the petitioners and to guarantee their safety, specifically in relation to any potential harm from petitioner No.1's parents or family members. The Beat Officer is instructed to meet with the petitioners daily, both in the morning before 9:00 AM and in the evening after 6:00 PM, for the next two months to ensure their well-being and safety.

Case: SMT. DEEPALI & ANR. Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR, W.P.(CRL) 3016/2023, CRL.M.A. 28098/2023.