'Despicable': Allahabad HC slams family's objection to woman marrying person of choice

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has condemned the family resistance to an adult woman's decision to marry a person of her choice and called such objections "despicable".

Providing protection to the 27-year-old woman who feared abduction, a bench of Justices J J Munir and Praveen Kumar Giri said the right to marry a person of one's choice is protected under Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.

The court was dealing with a petition moved by the father and brother of the woman (fourth respondent) seeking quashing of an FIR lodged by her under sections 140(3) (abduction), 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and others of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita at Chilh police station of Mirzapur district.

"It is despicable that the petitioners should object to the decision of an adult member of the family, a woman 27 years of age, about marrying a man of her choice. At least that is the right which every adult has under the Constitution by virtue of Article 21," the bench said in its order dated June 13.

The court clarified that it did not know whether the petitioners i.e. woman's father and brother, "really intend to abduct" her but the matter reflected a larger societal issue, i.e., the "value gap" between constitutional and social norms.

"The fact that there is social and familial resistance to the exercise of such right is a glaring depiction of the 'value gap' between the constitutional norms and those social. So long as there is a gap between the values fostered by the Constitution and those cherished by the society, these kinds of incidents would continue to happen," the court said.

In the FIR, the woman alleged a threat of abduction for wanting to marry a man of her choice. Though the court stayed the arrest of the petitioners in connection with the FIR, it also restrained them from interfering in the woman's life or from assaulting, threatening or contacting her or the man she intends to marry or live with.

"The petitioners shall not contact the fourth respondent (woman) over telephone or any other electronic device or using internet or through friends or associates. The police are also restrained from interfering with the fourth respondent's freedom and liberty in any manner, whatsoever," the court directed.

Granting time to state counsel and to informant to file counter-affidavit in the matter, the court ordered to list the case on July 18.