Recently, the Rajasthan High Court directed authorities to ensure the protection of life and personal liberty to a young couple seeking safety from alleged threats by family members. The Bench observed that Article 21 of the Constitution protections cannot be denied merely because the male partner has not yet attained marriageable age, emphasising that two consenting adults “cannot be left at the mercy of private respondents.”
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from a criminal writ petition filed by two individuals aged 18 and 19, who asserted that they intended to marry once the male petitioner attained statutory marriageable age and, until then, would reside together in a live-in relationship supported by an agreement executed between them. The Petitioners claimed that their decision resulted in threats from family members, prompting them to submit written representations before local police authorities seeking protection. Alleging that no action followed, they invoked writ jurisdiction seeking directions to ensure protection against harassment, detention, or harm by Respondents, including the Petitioner’s parents and relatives.
Contentions:
Counsel for the petitioners argued that both individuals were legally adults and entitled to make decisions concerning cohabitation and personal relationships. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, it was submitted that even if marriage at this stage may be voidable under Section 5 and Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, their relationship was lawful and protected. It was further submitted that live-in relationships are now statutorily recognised under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and any threat to their decision violates Article 21 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor contended that the male petitioner had not attained the legal age of marriage, 21 years as prescribed under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore neither marriage nor a legally recognised domestic arrangement could proceed. On that basis, it was argued that the petition did not merit judicial protection.
Observation of the Court:
The Court reiterated that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed on the ground that the parties do not fulfil marriage eligibility criteria. Referring to Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Bench noted that “a live in-relationship between two consensual adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence. In the case at hand, the petitioner No.2 has not yet attained the age of 21 years, therefore, he not being of marriageable age, the petitioners cannot be deprived to live together in such type of relationship.”
Emphasising that “both of them are major and have attained the age of majority and maturity,” the Court held that “the only hurdle and rider between solemnization of their marriage is the age of the petitioner No.2, who has not attained the eligible age of 21 years to perform marriage with the petitioner No.1. Hence, they cannot be left at the mercy of the private respondents, who are against their aforesaid decision.”
The Court, while relying on established judicial principles, reiterated that the “Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 stands on a much higher pedestal,” and stressed that the State is obligated to act where there is a credible threat to life or liberty. It added that individuals exercising personal autonomy must not be subjected to intimidation or interference, emphasising that they “cannot be left at the mercy of the private respondents, who are against their aforesaid decision.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court disposed of the writ petition while directing the Nodal Officer to decide the pending representations and, upon assessing threat perception, provide necessary protection to the petitioners. The Court affirms that autonomy in intimate decision-making is safeguarded under Article 21 of the Constitution and that adults choosing to cohabit, whether married or otherwise, are entitled to State protection against threats or interference.
Case Title: ABC and Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1537/2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Satyam Khandelwal
Advocate for the Respondent: PP Vivek Choudhary
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
