Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pravina Begam vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26804) on 4 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26804]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1620/2025
1. Pravina Begam D/o Mohammad Murad, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Ward No 13 Dhaliya 37 Ngc Hanumangarh
District Hanumangarh Raj
2. Dilshad Akhtar S/o Shameen Khan, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Ward No 14 Kheruwala Shadulsahar 20 Ptp
Ganganagar District Ganganagar Raj
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Department
Of Home Affairs Goverment Of Rajasthan Jaipur
2. The Superintendent Of Police, District Hanumangarh
3. The Station House Officer, Police Station Hanumangarh
Town District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
4. Buta S/o Gulam Husen, Resident Of Dhaliya 37 Ngc
Sitapur Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
5. Barkat S/o Gulam Husen, Resident Of Dhaliya 37 Ngc
Sitapur Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
6. Betulah S/o Murad Kha, Resident Of Dhaliya 37 Ngc
Sitapur Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
7. Rahmat Ali S/o Barkat Ali, Resident Of Dhaliya 37 Ngc
Sitapur Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
8. Akram S/o Shah Ali, Resident Of Dhaliya 37 Ngc Sitapur
Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
9. Faruk S/o Shah Shwar, Resident Of Dhaliya 37 Ngc
Sitapur Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
10. Noor Ali S/o Bilal Kha, Resident Of Dhaliya 37 Ngc Sitapur
Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
11. Murad Kha S/o Elamdin, Resident Of Dhaliya 37 Ngc
Sitapur Hanumangarh District Hanumangarh Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kachhah
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, P.P.
Mr. D.S. Pidiyar, AAAG for Mr. S.S.
Ladrecha, AAG
(Downloaded on 04/06/2025 at 04:59:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26804] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1620/2025]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)
Order
04/06/2025
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.
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 11.
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, Hanumangarh 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
[2025:RJ-JD:26804] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1620/2025]
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
of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Superintendent of
Police, Hanumangarh for ventilation of their grievances.
6. In case the petitioners move any application, it is expected
from the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh 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, Hanumangarh 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
119-Taruna/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
