Rajasthan High Court
Lokesh Kumari D/O Mohanlal vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 November, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7306/2021
1. Lokesh Kumari D/o Mohanlal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village Mancha, Ps Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar At
Present C/o Shri Subba, Ambedkar Chowk, Choodi
Market, Mohalla Meghwal, Tijara, Ps Tijara, District Alwar.
2. Mukesh S/o Tara Chand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village
Mancha Kishangarhbas, Ps Tijara Alwar At Present C/o
Shri Subba, Ambedkar Chowk, Choodi Market, Mohalla
Meghwal, Tijara, Ps Tijara, District Alwar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Superintendent Of Police, Alwar.
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar.
4. Station House Officer, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar.
5. Tara Chand S/o Late Sarjeet, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Village Macha, Tehsil And Police Station Kishangarbas,
District Alwar.
6. Beena W/o Tara Chand, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village
Macha, Tehsil And Police Station Kishangarbas, District
Alwar.
7. Rekha W/o Mukesh D/o Gangalal, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village Macha, Tehsil And Police Station Kishangarbas,
District Alwar.
8. Gangalal S/o Not Known, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Village Dhanduka, Ps Nuh, District Nuh Haryana.
9. Pappu S/o Gangalal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village
Dhanduka, Ps Nuh, District Nuh Haryana.
10. Rohitash S/o Gangalal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village
Dhanduka, Ps Nuh, District Nuh Haryana.
11. Bhur S/o Not Known, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village
Husainpur, Ps Nuh, District Nuh Haryana.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amir Aziz
For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-7306/2021]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
20/11/2021
1. Petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction for protection of life and
liberty of the petitioners.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners
are living in live-inrelationship and an agreement was entered into
between the parties on 03.03.2021. A child was born on
11.10.2021. It is also contended that brother of Petitioner No.2
solemnized marriage with Respondent No.7 in the year 2013.
Ashok, brother of Petitioner No.2, died in the year 2016.
Thereafter, the family members of Petitioner No.2 compelled the
petitioner for performing the marriage ceremony with Respondent
No.7. Thereafter, Petitioner No.2 in the year 2020 met Petitioner
No.1 and in March, 2021 entered into a live-inrelationship. It is
also contended that marriage of Petitioner No.2 with Respondent
No.7 was not a valid marriage.
3. I have considered the contentions.
4. In the Petition itself, petitioner has shown Respondent No.7
as wife of Mukesh Petitioner No.2, hence Mukesh cannot take a
plea that the marriage was not a valid marriage before this Court
in its inherent jurisdiction.
5. The pre-requisites for a live-in-relationship as held by the
Apex Court in D.Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10
SCC 469 is that the couple must hold themselves out to society as
being akin to spouses and must be of legal age to marry or
qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-7306/2021]
6. Since Petitioner No.2 is married and living in live-
inrelationship is not permissible, hence, this Court is not inclined
to entertain the misc. petition.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Petition is dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
ARTI SHARMA /184
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
