Prerna vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5444 MP

                                        1
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             AT GWALIOR
                                WP No. 8411 of 2022
             (PRERNA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 13-04-2022
       Shri Hemant Singh Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner.

       Shri Varun Kaushik, learned GA for respondents No.1to3/State.

Petitioner No.1 is present in person along with her parents and petitioner No. 2 is also present in person who are duly identified by their counsel.

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:

€œi) That, respondent authority may kindly be directed to ensure the protection life and liberty of the petitioners, in the interest of justice.

ii) That, respondent police authority may kindly be directed to provide safety to life and liberty to the petitioners against the respondent No. 4 and any other person.

iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case same may kindly be granted to the petitioners.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is major aged 19 years and petitioner No.2 is 19 years of age. Both are in

emotional proximity and decided to live in live-in relationship without performing marriage.

3. However, it is being objected by father of petitioner No.1, therefore, present petition has been filed. Counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475 and Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 192. He further relied upon the order passed in the case of Harpreet Kaur and another Vs. State of Haryana and others passed in CRWPNo.10786/2020 as well as the order dated 20-12-2018 in Writ Petition No.28887/2018 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.

4. Per contra, it is the submission of learned counsel for the respondents/State that petitioners intend to live in live-in relationship and do not want to marry each other at this stage. He further informed this Court that missing

person report was registered at the instance of family members of petitioner No.1 - Prerna at Police Station Dehat, Dabra District Gwalior. Today she has been brought along with her parents before this Court and petitioner No.1 expressed her desire to live with petitioner No.2 -Saurabh.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

6. Petitioners expressed their intention and desire to live together under live- in relationship because they are Major and can decide their future course of actions independently.

7. It is a case where petitioner No.1 produced her original markssheet of Class 10th in which her date of birth is marked as 12-03-2003, therefore, petitioner No.1 Prerana has completed 18 years. Similarly age of petitioner No.2 -Saurabh is referred as 01-01-2003, therefore, he also attained the age of 19 years recently. As per Section 3 of The Majority Act, 1875 both the petitioners are major therefore, as per statute they can avail all the privileges and benefits flowing out of it.

8. As per Section 5(iii) of The Hindu Marriage Act 1955, marriageable age is 21 years for male and 18 years for female but here at this stage, petitioners did not intend to marry, therefore, both these statutes are not of much relevance at this stage. However, so far live-in relationship is concerned, prima facie being major they can decide their future course of actions. Therefore, to the extent wherein petitioners intend to live in live-in relationship, petition stands allowed.

9. It is made clear that no interference in the peaceful coexistence of petitioners contrary to their interest be made by any person and if any cognizable offence against the petitioners is being committed on the basis of their living in live-in relationship then police authorities shall proceed against those miscreants/erring persons in accordance with law. Petitioner No.1 be allowed to go as per her wish wherever she wants to go, if possible escorted by police (female) personnel.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, petition stands disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

JUDGE ar

ABDUR Digitally signed by ABDUR RAHMAN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=d604b5a66b413c436e6af99c6fe547304e1bc26d2b510c c133f1b56faa63e77b,

RAHMAN pseudonym=352E5BC6169A1C65270B76C8214AD91A9A2E28EB , serialNumber=1B0EA1B496C965067285A628B81AE07B60D3420 48B7853E6108263F1DDCC0F50, cn=ABDUR RAHMAN Date: 2022.04.13 18:18:54 +05'30'