The Allahabad High Court’s ruling on April 4 has made a significant observation regarding the limits of police protection for couples who marry against their families' wishes. In a case filed by a couple seeking protection from potential harassment by relatives, the court clarified that such couples cannot demand police protection as a matter of right, unless there's clear evidence of a real threat to their life or liberty.
Key Observations by the Court:
-
Mere social disapproval isn't enough: The court emphasized that simply marrying against family wishes does not automatically entitle a couple to security.
-
“Learn to support each other and face society”: Justice Saurabh Srivastava remarked that unless there's a concrete threat, such couples must stand by each other and navigate societal resistance on their own.
-
Reference to the Supreme Court: The judgment cited the SC ruling in Lata Singh vs. State of UP (2006), where it was held that courts are not obliged to provide police protection to every couple eloping to marry for love unless genuine threats exist.
-
Lack of evidence in this case:
-
The petitioners, Shreya Kesarwani and her husband, had no FIRs or specific complaints filed against their family members.
-
The court found no evidence of danger to the couple’s safety or mental peace.
-
The couple had only submitted a general representation to the SP, which, the court held, was insufficient.
-
-
Police to act if threat arises: The court said that if the police do identify a real threat, they are empowered to act in accordance with the law and offer protection.
Why this Ruling Matters:
This verdict draws a clear line between real danger and assumed or hypothetical threats. While courts have historically protected inter-caste, inter-faith, or runaway couples in genuine distress, this judgment reminds that legal protection cannot be taken for granted in every case of marital disagreement with parents.
It also reflects the judiciary’s caution in preventing misuse of court resources for purely personal matters unless fundamental rights are actually at risk.
