Valentine's Day Special | How Indian Courts Have Been Protecting Couples And Their Rights

Love is a construct and feeling that we all are familiar with. It wouldn't be wrong to assume that we have exhibited it for atleast one person in our lifetimes – maybe a parent, a sibling, a friend, a guardian or a romantic partner. It is touted as one of the most blissful feelings in the world, but still, "love" does not come easy to people, especially in India. There are multi-faceted barriers in the form of religion, gender, caste and if nothing else – economic and social standing. A testament to the above, the country is land to honor killings, homophobia, and love-affair-related suicides. As of date, there is a growing trend for couples to be targeted by family members and authorities over romantic choices, leading most to knock the doors of courts for protection and preservation of fundamental freedoms. While the State's role in preventing moral degradation of this kind is a discussion for another day, in the present article, we see how courts in India have come forward to protect love-struck couples and shielded their liberties & freedoms against transgressions by authorities and family members alike. Notably, the Supreme Court has refused to recognize same-sex marriages in India, but courts continue to grant protection to LGBTQ couples as well against threats from families (or others) to secure freedom to live with a person of their choice. Beginning with the Supreme Court, the article progresses to outline and recap High Court cases where right to be with a person of one's choice was upheld and on factoring in a couple's love for each other, sometimes even legitimate legal concerns were sidelined to do "real justice".Supreme CourtIn X v. The State of Karnataka and Ors. (2024), the Court set at liberty a 25-year-old woman who was illegally detained by her parents after learning of her relationship with a man. The woman's partner had approached the Court with a habeas corpus plea to effectuate her release from her family's custody. Allegedly, she had been brought by her family from Dubai, where she was residing with the man and working. On being brought to India, the woman's devices, passport and other belongings were taken away by her family, who apparently also forced her to enter into an arranged marriage. Allowing the woman to return with her partner, the Supreme Court criticized the concerned High Court for delaying the relief.In a 2023 case, the Court granted bail to a man in an inter-faith relationship, who was in custody for over nine months in a case filed by the woman's parents alleging rape and kidnapping. It was noted that on an earlier occasion, the couple had filed a joint petition for police protection.In CISF and Others v. Santosh Kumar Pandey (2022), while upholding the dismissal of a CISF personnel who was found to have harassed a couple at night, the Court observed that police officers are not required to do "moral policing". Allegedly, the officer had intercepted a colleague and his fiancée, who were proceeding to watch a Garba performance, and asked if he "could spend some time" with the fiancée. He further demanded something in return for allowing the couple to pass, which led the colleague to give his watch.In Gurwinder Singh & Anr. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. (2021), protection was granted to a couple that was denied relief by the concerned High Court with an observation that live-in relationships are morally and socially unacceptable. The Court directed Punjab police to act expeditiously in the matter as it concerned life and liberty of the couple.Allahabad High CourtIn Razia and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (2023), the Court protected rights of an inter-religion couple to stay in a live-in relationship and shielded them from parental influence/threats. To quote the Bench, "a boy or girl, who have attained majority, is free to marry or live with a person of his/her choice and no one including his/her parents or anyone on their behalf can interfere in their right to freedom of choosing a partner which emanates from Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India."In Sandeep Kumar And Another v. State Of U.P. And 9 Others (2022), the Court observed that "the choice of a life partner, the desire for personal intimacy, and the yearning to find love and fulfillment in a human relationship between two consenting adults cannot be interfered with by any other person". The observation came in a habeas corpus plea filed by a husband, alleging that his wife had been forcibly taken away by her family. After hearing the parties, the Court allowed the wife to go with her husband.Delhi High CourtIn Arif Khan v. The State and Anr. (2024), the Court observed that true love between two individuals, one or both of whom may be minor(s) on the verge of majority, cannot be controlled through rigors of law or State action. It quashed a kidnapping and rape case registered against the accused-boy who eloped with a...

Valentine's Day Special | How Indian Courts Have Been Protecting Couples And Their Rights

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

Valentine's Day Special | How Indian Courts Have Been Protecting Couples And Their Rights

Debby Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Debby Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers