In a petition filed by an adult couple where one of has not attained majority for marriage. It has been submitted by them that their fundamental right of “protection of life and liberty” has been violated. Hence, its restoration has been invoked under article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
The petitioners submit that they have known each other for the last year and wish to marry each other with Petitioner no.1 not having attained the majority of marriageable age. But the parents of petitioner no. 2 are against this and have beaten her up several times, locked her up in her room, and have threatened her to get her killed. Further, several fights
have been taken place between the families. After this, Petitioner no. 2 left her parents’ home and started living with Petitioner no.1 in a live-in relationship. This relationship not being acceptable to the parents, they have warned the Petitioners to bear harsh consequences.
The court in its observations held that both the Petitioners are adults and have the right to live their life on their terms and their parents can’t compel them to do it their way. Even if they have not attained the marriageable age still the fact that remains is that both of them are majors and can’t have their parents dictating their life for them. The court further went ahead and said that as per article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to life and liberty has been given to every individual and the choice of the partner for one is an important aspect of the right to life. For this case, the court relied on the case of Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368, where it was held by the Supreme Court that every person has his right to life and liberty and that also covers the right to choose a partner for oneself.
Society hence has no role to play in deciding the role of partners for people.
Moreover, article 21 guarantees the right to life and liberty to everyone. It has been stated there that no one can be deprived of his right to life and liberty except for the procedure established by law. Only because one of the petitioners have not attained the age of majority to marry, they cannot be deprived to exercise their right to life.
REPORTED BY: TANUJ SHARMA