âDonât be nosy parkers' in marriages of consenting adults, Allahabad HC tells U.P. Police
Reaffirming that consenting adults are free to choose their life partners, the Allahabad High Court recently rebuked the Uttar Pradesh Police for continuing to investigate
Reaffirming that consenting adults are free to choose their life partners, the Allahabad High Court recently rebuked the Uttar Pradesh Police for continuing to investigate the marriage of two adults, observing that the police have âno business to be nosy parkersâ in such matters. A Division Bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena on July 27 quashed an FIR registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against a couple who had solemnised their marriage in February this year, after attaining majority.
The couple had approached the court after the police filed the FIR against the womanâs husband on a complaint from the girlâs father, who alleged that the man had enticed his daughter into marrying him. However, the petitioners contended that they had solemnised their marriage of their own free will and that the police were unlawfully attempting to separate them despite the womanâs unequivocal choice to live with her husband. âThe carrying on of this investigation into an adultâs free choice of her partner and the marriage between two major citizens of the country is not only an abuse of process of criminal law, but also gross violation of their fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The liberty that a person, who is a major, enjoys, includes the liberty to marry a person of his/her choice. The police have no business in the matter to be nosy parkers. We have repeatedly reminded the police that it is no business of theirs to investigate marriages. They ought to investigate crimes. This is no crime where any investigation is required,â the court said. Finding merit in the coupleâs allegation that the police were siding with the womanâs father, the court imposed costs on both the police authorities and the complainant.
It directed the Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer to jointly pay âš1,000 to the woman petitioner, while her father was ordered to pay âš5,000.
The BriefWire