The High Court of Madhya Pradesh on Friday directed police protection for an inter-caste couple who were subjected to threats and harassment from family and community members due to their inter-caste marriage [NY & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. ]
Justice BP Sharma noted that the petitioners, aged 23 and 19, are adults and voluntarily married on January 9 as per Hindu rites and rituals.
"It is not in dispute that the petitioners are majors and they have solemnised their marriage," noted the Court.
The couple informed the court that the bride’s father and other relatives were trying to initiate criminal proceedings against them and were pressuring them to dissolve the marriage.
The Court observed that the conflict might have arose because the bride belongs to the Yadav community, while the groom belongs to the Kushwaha community, making this an inter-caste marriage.
The petitioners sought directions to prevent coercive action and to ensure their safety from threats and harassment by both family and other members of the community.
The counsel for the petitioners emphasised that adults are legally entitled to marry a person of their choice and to live together without interference.
Their argument relied on Supreme Court judgments, including the Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006) and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), which hold that adults’ right to marry freely cannot be obstructed and that threats, harassment or acts of violence against such couples are illegal.
The State did not challenge the fact that the couple were adults or that their marriage had been solemnised voluntarily.
The High Court observed that attempts to falsely implicate the couple in criminal cases amounted to harassment and emphasised that interfering with an adult’s choice of partner infringes on personal liberty and dignity.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s stance that while parents or community members may choose to sever social ties with couples they disapprove of, they cannot threaten, harass or commit acts of violence against them.
Based on these considerations, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police of the concerned area to provide protection to the couple.
The police are instructed to ensure that neither the petitioners nor their relatives face harassment or threats and that any unlawful acts are addressed strictly according to the law.
Advocate Rambihari Gautam represented the petitioners.
Advocate Yadvendra Dwived appeared for the State.
[Read Order]