Uttarakhand High Court: Right To Choose Partner Is Fundamental Right To Adults And Grants Protect To Gay Couple

The Uttarakhand High Court granted protection to a gay couple who were in a live-in relationship.

The Court directed the police to protect the couple and observed that people who are majors have the right to choose their life partners despite opposition from family members.

The observation was made by a Bench of Chief Justice Raghvenbdra Singh Chauhan and Justice N.S. Dhanik in a plea filed by a couple who decided to live together for life.

Before the Court, the couple submitted that their families are against the relationship and have been threatening them as well. They also said that even though they approached the police for help, they have not received it.

The Bench noted that the petitioners are majors and have the fundamental right to choose their life partners therefore, even the families are against the relationship, and they can’t be allowed to threaten the petitioners.

Accordingly, the Court directed the SSP of Udham Singh Nagar district to provide protection to the petitioners and the Dy. The Advocate General was asked to inform the court if any steps are taken against the private respondents.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.S. DHANIK

Writ Petition (CRL) No. 2254 of 2021

16TH DECEMBER, 2021, Mr. Vikas Anand, The learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.K. Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

ORDER : (Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

1. The petitioners, Mr. Rohit Sagar and Mr. Mohit Goyal, have filed the present writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that since they had fallen in love with each other, both of them are in a live-in relationship and have decided to live together for whole life. According to the Aadhaar Cards, both the petitioners were major. However, the respondent Nos. 4 to 8, who are the parents of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, never gave acceptance to this relationship. It is stated that respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are continuously threatening both the petitioners with dire consequences. Despite the fact that on 14.12.2021, the petitioners had submitted a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Udham Singh Nagar and the S.H.O., P.S. Rudrapur, no action has been taken by him for protecting the lives and property of both the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition before this Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the abovementioned facts. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, since both the petitioners are major, they are free to choose their lifepartners. Even if respondent nos. 4 to 8 are opposed to the marriage, they cannot be permitted to interfere with the fundamental rights of the petitioners. However, despite the representation made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Udham Singh Nagar, the police is yet to provide protection to the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that this Court should order the respondent no. 2, the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Udham Singh Nagar, to immediately provide police protection to the petitioners.
3. Undoubtedly, persons, who are major, have a fundamental right to choose their own life-partners, despite the opposition voiced by the family members. Therefore, the respondent nos. 4 to 8 should not be permitted to threaten or to hurt the petitioners.
4. Hence, this Court directs the respondent no. 2, the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Udham Singh Nagar, to immediately provide police protection to both the petitioners. The protection shall not only be for their lives, but shall also extend to protecting their property, if any.
5. Issue notice to respondent nos.4 to 8. Rule made returnable within four weeks.
6. The learned Deputy Advocate General for the State seeks four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. He is directed to inform this Court about the steps taken by the police against the private respondents, if any.
7. List this case after four weeks.

                                                                                                    RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.

                                                                                                                     N.S. DHANIK, J.

Dated: 16th December, 2021

Source : Law Trend