‘Don’t be nosy parkers' in marriages of consenting adults, Allahabad HC tells U.P. Police
Image for representation
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
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 “no business to be nosy parkers” 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 woman’s husband on a complaint from the girl’s 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 woman’s unequivocal choice to live with her husband.“The carrying on of this investigation into an adult’s 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,” the court said.Finding merit in the couple’s allegation that the police were siding with the woman’s 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 ₹1,000 to the woman petitioner, while her father was ordered to pay ₹5,000.
Discussion (0)