Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ugam Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26814) on 4 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26814]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1611/2025
1. Ugam Devi W/o Chhagan Lal, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Indra Colony, Balotra Rural, District Barmer,
Rajasthan.
2. Ramju Ram Alias Prakash Kumar S/o Dadama Ram, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Indra Colony, Balotra Rural,
District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Superintendent Of Police, Balotra.
3. Sho, Balotra Police Station, District Balotra.
4. Chhagan Lal S/o Raju Ram, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of Padaru, Police Station Siwana, District
Balotra.
5. Ramesh S/o Dadama Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
Resident Of Padaru, Police Station Siwana, District
Balotra.
6. Dariya Devi W/o Ramesh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident
Of Padaru, Police Station Siwana, District Balotra.
7. Kamali Devi D/o Natharam, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Otwala, Sayla, District Jalor, At Present
Residing At Padaru, Police Station Siwana, District
Balotra.
8. Kali Devi W/o Dadama Ram, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of Padaru, Police Station Siwana, District
Balotra.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ekta Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Pareek, P.P.
Mr. D.S. Pidiyaar, AAAG for Mr. S.S.
Ladrecha, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)
[2025:RJ-JD:26814] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1611/2025]
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 8.
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, Balotra 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
[2025:RJ-JD:26814] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1611/2025]
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, Balotra for ventilation of their grievances.
6. In case the petitioners move any application, it is expected
from the Superintendent of Police, Balotra 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, Balotra 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
111-Taruna/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
