Monday, 08, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Sunita Devi D/O Shri Nahanu vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:21006)
2024 Latest Caselaw 3520 Raj/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3520 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 3 May, 2024

Rajasthan High Court

Smt. Sunita Devi D/O Shri Nahanu vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:21006) on 3 May, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Upman

Bench: Anil Kumar Upman

[2024:RJ-JP:21006]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 889/2024

1.       Smt. Sunita Devi D/o Shri Nahanu, Aged About 26 Years,

         Resident Of Narayan Vihar, Mansarowar, Jaipur (Raj.) At

         Present Living In Relationship With Shri Bheru Lal S/o

         Shri Ramkishan, Aged 28 Years, Resident Of Jhilai, Tonk,

         District Tonk (Raj.)
2.       Bheru Lal Son Of Shri Ramkishan, Aged About 28 Years,

         Resident Of Jhilai, Police Station Niwai, District Tonk

         (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2.       Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.       Superintendent Of Police, Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.).

4.       S.h.o. Police Station Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

5.       Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur Rural (Rajasthan)

6.       S.h.o. Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur Rural (Raj.)

7.       Nahanu Son Of Shri Pratap, Resident Of Narayan Vihar,

         Mansarowar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

8.       Rajendra Gurjar Son Of Shri Heera Lal, Resident Of

         Ramsagar, Akoda, Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur

         (Raj.)

9.       Heera Lal Son Of Shri Sharwan, Resident Of Ramsagar,

         Akoda, Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur (Raj.)

                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghuraj Singh Rajawat Mr. Vinay Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, PP

[2024:RJ-JP:21006] (2 of 4) [CRLW-889/2024]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

03/05/2024

1. Petitioners are present in person and they have duly been

identified by their counsel.

2. Petitioners have preferred instant petition for issuance of

necessary directions to official-respondents to provide adequate

security and protection to them on the ground that they are facing

grave threat of their life and liberty at the hands of private

respondent.

3. Counsel for petitioners submits that both the petitioners are

mature enough to take decision of their life. Counsel submits that

petitioners have decided to live together in the company of each

other and the family members of the petitioners were against it

therefore, the petitioners were left with no other option then to

leave their house to reside together. Counsel further submits that

petitioners have entered into live-in-relationship on 26.04.2024

and executed the deed of live-in-relationship.

4. Pursuant the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Navtej

Singh Johar V. Union of India [(2018)10 SCC 1] and of this

court in Bajrang Lal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr.

Miscellaneous Petition No.2/2019 decided on 04-01-2019, the

State Government through Director General of Police issued a

Circular dated 18-01-2019 and appointed Nodal Officer at every

Police Station in the State of Rajasthan for ventilation of

grievances of newly married couple, including for adequate

protection. Life and liberty is fundamental right of every citizen

[2024:RJ-JP:21006] (3 of 4) [CRLW-889/2024]

being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, petitioners

deserve protection of their life and liberty in accordance with law.

5. Similar to the married couple, petitioners, who are major and

willingly living in relationship, without entering into marriage, also

cannot be denied protection of their life and liberty since it is

fundamental right of every citizen being part of Article 21 of the

Constitution of India as has been observed by this Apex Court in

case of S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal [(2010)5 SCC 600] and

Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India [(2019)3 SCC 39]. Thus,

petitioners deserve protection of their life and liberty in

accordance with law.

6. In view of above, however, this Court in exercise of its writ

jurisdiction is not inclined to enter into examining the validity of

marriage/legality of relationship of parties, therefore does not

render any affirmation of legality and validity of the status of

parties, under which they are living together, but keeping in mind

the proposition of law set forth by the Apex Court in catena of

judgments and in order to protect fundamental rights of parties

for their life and liberty, guaranteed under the Constitution, this

petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the

concerned Nodal Officer for ventilation of their grievances.

7. In case petitioners move any application, it is expected from

the concerned Nodal Officer to take necessary action for not

allowing to illegally hinder in peaceful life and liberty of petitioners

by private respondent, who is not agreeable to the relationship of

petitioners, but after verifying the fact, if required.

[2024:RJ-JP:21006] (4 of 4) [CRLW-889/2024]

8. However, it is made clear that this order will not affect the

civil/ criminal proceedings, if any, in the present matter.

9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J

LALIT MOHAN /8

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter