The Madhya Pradesh High Court has indicated a hesitance towards upholding the rights of a young live-in couple seeking protection for their lives. In a recent development, the Court suggested that there may be instances where certain rights, despite being constitutionally guaranteed, need not always be enforced.
During the proceedings presided over by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, a petition was presented requesting protection for a teenage couple cohabiting against parental objections. While the Court did not refuse protection to the teenagers, aged around 19, it voiced apprehension regarding contemporary youth's decision-making.
According to a report of Bar and Bench, this Court must record its concern on the choices, the youngsters are making these days. Although there is much to ponder over this subject but it must be remembered that even though certain rights have been conferred by the Constitution, it is not necessary to enjoy, and enforce them as well, Justice Abhyankar said.
The Court also hinted at the ramifications of initiating relationships at a young age, highlighting potential challenges ahead. It pointed out that in India, there is no provision by the State for financial support to the unemployed or uneducated individuals. Consequently, those not reliant on parental support would need to secure livelihoods not only for themselves but also for their partners.
This would naturally obviate possibility of going to a school or a college, and if you get into this struggle of life at an early age by choice, not only your chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life are drastically affected but your acceptance in the society is also reduced, it added.
Additionally, the Court addressed the heightened challenges a young girl might encounter if she were to conceive at a tender age, advising caution in both decision-making and the assertion of rights. It is far more difficult for a girl who can also become pregnant at an early age, leading to further complications in her life. Thus, discretion is advised while opting for such choices and enforcing such rights, as it is one thing to have the rights and another to enforce them, Bar and Bench reported.