Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramputri Daukiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26874) on 6 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26874]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1647/2025
1. Ramputri Daukiya D/o Ram Kishor, Aged About 26 Years,
Dukiyo Ki Dhani, Kadwansaro Ki Dhani, Gotan Nagaur,
Rajasthan, Presently Residing At Saran Nagar, Jodhpur
342015.
2. Sumer Choudhary S/o Jaita Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
Mahadev Ji Mandirwala Bass, Khokharia, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary,
Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur (East).
3. Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur
4. Sho, Police Station Gotan, Nagaur.
5. Ram Kishor S/o Fattu Ram, Dukiyo Ki Dhani, Kadwansaro
Ki Dhani, Gotan Nagaur, Rajasthan
6. Bhanwar Ram Tada, R/o Kaswo Ki Dhani Gotan, Nagaur.
7. Raju Tada S/o Bhanwar Ram Tada, R/o Kaswao Ki Dhani,
Gotan, Nagaur.
8. Ram Karan Choudhary S/o Gopal Ram Choudhary, R/o
Saran Nagar C Road, Jodhpur.
9. Gopal Choudhary, R/o Saran Nagar, C Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)
Order
06/06/2025
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.
[2025:RJ-JD:26874] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1647/2025]
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. 5 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 Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur 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
to protect the fundamental rights of the parties for their life and
liberty guaranteed under the Constitution, this petition is disposed
[2025:RJ-JD:26874] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1647/2025]
of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Commissioner of
Police, Jodhpur for ventilation of their grievances.
6. In case the petitioners move any application, it is expected
from the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, 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 Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur 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
132-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
