Allahabad High Court on Tuesday strongly slammed the family of a 27-year-old woman for resisting her decision to marry a person of her choice. In the FIR filed against her family, the woman had alleged that she faced threat of abduction for marrying a man of her choice.

Hearing the case, the bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri termed such objections ‘despicable.’ The Court highlighted that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Live Law reported.

Read Also: Men Could Face 10-Year Jail For Breaking Up With Women Under Section 69 Of New Law

The bench stated that it is despicable that the petitioners should object to the decision of an adult member of the family, a woman 27 years of age, to marry a man of her choice. “At least that is the right which every adult has under the Constitution by virtue of Article 21,” it added.

The bench was dealing with a plea moved by the father and brother of the woman seeking quashing of the FIR lodged by her under Sections 140(3), 62, and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Read Also: 24-Year-Old Daughter Marries Her 50-Year-Old Father, Video Goes Viral

Notably, the bench stayed the arrest of the petitioners in connection with the FIR. However, it restrained the family 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 court also directed that the petitioners should not contact the fourth respondent over the telephone or any other electronic device or using the internet or through friends or associates. It also asked the police to refrain from interfering with the woman’s freedom and liberty in any manner.

Denoting that there is social and familial resistance to the exercise of such a right is a glaring depiction of the ‘value gap’ between the constitutional norms and those social, the bench clarified that these kinds of incidents will continue to happen as long as there is a gap between the values fostered by the Constitution and those cherished by the society.

Pointing out the larger societal issue, the Court said that it did not know whether the petitioners, the woman’s father and brother, really intended to abduct her, adding that the case reflected a larger societal issue, i.e., the ‘value gap’ between constitutional and social norms.

After issuing notices to the state government and other authorities and granting them three weeks to file a counter-affidavit in the case, the court listed the matter for July 18.