The Allahabad High Court has held that the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution stands “on a much higher pedestal” and must be protected “regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or a void marriage/nikah or even the absence of any marriage/nikah between the parties.”
The Court further observed that ,
“The issue in hand, however, is not marriage/nikah of the petitioners, but the deprivation of fundamental right of seeking protection of life and liberty.”
Emphasizing the autonomy of consenting adults, the Court ruled that even if the validity of a nikah is under dispute, no interference can be permitted in the peaceful living of two major individuals who have chosen to reside together.
The order was passed by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh while deciding a writ petition filed by Smt. Sidra Parveen and another against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking protection from alleged harassment by the woman’s father after they claimed to have solemnized nikah of their own free will.
According to the case, the petitioners stated that both were majors and had entered into a nikah on April 24, 2025. They contended that family members of petitioner no.1 were interfering in their peaceful marital life and had earlier compelled them to seek police protection.
The woman asserted before the Court that she apprehended danger to her life from her father and alleged that her relatives and associates of her father attempted to obstruct her outside the court premises as well.
However, the plea was strongly opposed by the woman’s father as well as the State authorities. It was argued that the nikah itself was not valid because the woman was allegedly residing in Dubai between January 23, 2025 and May 21, 2025, and therefore could not have physically participated in the ceremony held on April 24, 2025.
Relying upon passport records and a report submitted by the District Magistrate, Rampur, the respondents contended that the nikah had been conducted through video conferencing while the woman was abroad.
Read also: https://practicinglawyer.in/jharkhand-hc-foot-over-bridge-harmu-road/
The Court noted that the witnesses and the Qazi had admitted that the nikah was solemnized through video conferencing, though the authenticity of the video itself had not been verified.
Despite the dispute regarding the nikahnama, the High Court made it clear that it was not adjudicating upon the legality or genuineness of the marriage certificate at this stage.
The Court observed that the objections raised by the respondents regarding the validity of the nikah were “misconceived” and “premature” insofar as the present proceedings were concerned, since the real controversy before the Court related to the petitioners’ apprehension regarding threats to their life and liberty.
Placing reliance upon several Supreme Court judgments, including Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. and Ors. reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368, Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192 and KS. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, the High Court reiterated that the right of an adult to choose a life partner forms an inseparable facet of dignity, privacy and personal liberty protected under Article 21.
The Court quoted extensively from Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that neither society, nor the State, nor even constitutional courts can intrude into the private domain of personal relationships between consenting adults.
The Court further remarked that the mere suspicion surrounding the nikahnama could not deprive the petitioners of constitutional protection.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., 2006 Cr.L.J. 3309, the Court observed that once two persons attain majority, they are free to marry or live together according to their own choice and cannot be subjected to threats, harassment or violence by family members or society.
Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court directed that the petitioners would remain at liberty to live together peacefully and that no person should interfere in their life.
It further ordered that if any disturbance is caused, the petitioners may approach the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police, who shall ensure immediate protection.
At the same time, the Court clarified that it had not adjudicated upon the validity of the nikah or the genuineness of the marriage certificate and that the order would not obstruct any lawful investigation or proceedings pending before the authorities.
Case: Smt. Sidra Parveen And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case No: Writ – C No. – 42672 of 2025
Date of Order: 14.05.2026
Status: Disposed of
