Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Karama Bai vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26868) on 6 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26868]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1632/2025
1. Karama Bai W/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Ward No.31, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh,
At Present Resident Of Chak 30 Ps Lunewala, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj)
2. Ram Kumar S/o Krishan Kumar,, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Chak 52 Np, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District
Sriganganagar (Raj)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Home Affairs, Jaipur,raj.
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Sriganganagar
3. Station House Officer, Police Station Raisinghnagar,
District Sriganganagar (Raj)
4. Vinod S/o Jeeturam, Resident Of Jaisavati, Tehsil
Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar (Raj)
5. Anita W/o Vinod, Resident Of Jaisavati, Tehsil Suratgarh,
District Sriganganagar (Raj)
6. Mukesh S/o Lalchand, Resident Of Lunewala, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj)
7. Lalchand S/o Sukhram, Resident Of Lunewala, Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj)
8. Mangilal S/o Kalu Ram, Resident Of Ward No.23 New 31,
Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj)
9. Sharda Devi W/o Kalu Ram, Resident Of Ward No.23 New
31, Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tirupati Chandra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)
Order
06/06/2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26868] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1632/2025]
1. The criminal writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
direction for being provided with adequate security and protection.
2. The petitioners, both being major persons, claim to be in a
live-in relationship. They submit that they are living with each
other against the wishes of their parents and thus, they feel
threatened at the hands of respondent nos.4 to 9.
3. Petitioners, who are major and willingly living in a
relationship without entering into marriage, also cannot be denied
protection of their life and liberty since it is a fundamental right of
every citizen being part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal [(2010)5 SCC 600] and Joseph
Shine Vs. Union of India [(2019)3 SCC 39]. Thus, the petitioners
deserve protection of their life and liberty in accordance with law.
4. The documents pertaining to the age of the petitioners and
live-in-relationship agreement have been filed on record. Thus,
taking cue from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR
2006 SC 2522, the prayer made by the petitioners for directing
the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar to provide protection
to the petitioners deserves to be accepted.
5. This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, is not inclined
to enter into examining the validity of legality of the relationship
of the parties. Therefore, it does not render any affirmation of
legality and validity of the status of parties under which they are
living together. However, keeping in mind the propositions of law
set forth by the Apex Court in a catena of judgments and in order
[2025:RJ-JD:26868] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1632/2025]
to protect the fundamental rights of the parties for their life and
liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, this petition is disposed
of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Superintendent
of Police, Sri Ganganagar for ventilation of their grievances.
6. In case the petitioners move any application, it is expected
from the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, to take
necessary action to ensure that no illegal hindrance is caused to
the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners by private
respondents, who are not agreeable to their relationship, but only
after verifying the facts, if required.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar, shall ensure
that no harm is caused to the petitioners, who are in a live-in
relationship.
8. However, it is made clear that this order will not affect the
civil/criminal proceedings, if any, in the present matter.
9. The criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)),J
126-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
