[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Resham vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 February, 2026
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5091
1 WP-6536-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 18th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 6536 of 2026
RESHAM AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Zishan Khan - Advocate for the petitioners.
Dr. Amit Bhatia, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-
"i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction,
including a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing
the respondent authorities to provide immediate and
constitutional and stan etitioners, and faisy NT duty and
violation ed the concerned mplication, no UP. & person
and ch adequate police protection to the petitioners so
as to safeguard their life and personal liberty,
ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the respondent authorities to consider and act upon the
intimation/representation submitted by the petitioners
strictly in accordance with law,
iii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction that in
the event of receipt of any complaint against the
petitioners, the same shall be dealt with strictly in
accordance with law after due verification and inquiry
and without any coercive action except in accordance
with due process of law,
iv Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
restraining the respondents from causing any
harassment to the petitioners on account of their lawful
marriage,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5091
2 WP-6536-2026
v. Pass any other writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are residing together
against the wishes of their parents, but are apprehending that some untoward
action may be taken by their parents thus protection in this regard has been
sought.
3. In support of his contention that protection can be granted to live
in partner also, counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court
to a decision rendered by the case of Nandakumar v. State of Kerala reported
as (2018) 16 SCC 602, in which in a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme
Court has taken note of the relationship between the persons involved, and
opined that since both the persons were major, and even if they are not
competent to enter into wedlock, they have a right to live together and even
outside the wedlock. Thus, it is submitted that the present petitioners, who
are entitled to reside together may be protected from any violence by any
person or their parents.
4. Shri Rajwardhan Gawde, learned counsel for the
respondents/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has
submitted that if such protection is granted it would not be in the larger
interest of the society and would promote promiscuousness in the society.
5. Heard. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused
the documents filed on record, as also the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme court in para 10 of which it has been observed as under:-
"10.We need not go into this aspect in detail. For our purposes, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:5091
3 WP-6536-2026
sufficient to note that both Appellant 1 and Thushara are major. Even if
they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is
disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. It would
not be out of place to mention that "live-in relationship" is now recognized
by the legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."
6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to allow the present
petition since the petitioners are major and they are entitled to reside as per
their own will and if they so decide, their choice needs to be protected from
external forces.
7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed, and
respondents are directed to provide such protection to the petitioners as
required.
8. A copy of this order be supplied to the office of the Advocate
General so that this order may be communicated to respondent No.2, the
Deputy Commissioner, District Indore for prompt compliance of the order.
9. The concerned SHO, Police Station Indore, District
Indore/respondent no.3 is also directed to share his/her mobile number with
the petitioners so that they can reach him/her at any time, in case of any
emergency.
10. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
VD
