Consenting Majors In Live-In Relationship Entitled To Protection Even If Male Is Below 21 Years : Rajasthan High Court Directs Police Nodal Officer To Decide Couple’s Protection Plea
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed the Nodal Officer of the concerned police station to promptly act on protection representations filed by an 18-year-old woman and a 19-year-old man who reported threats from family members after choosing to live together in a live-in relationship. Treating the request as an assertion of their right to life and personal liberty, the Court noted that, although the male partner has not yet reached the statutory marriageable age, both individuals are majors who may cohabit and seek protection, since such a live-in arrangement between consenting adults is not an offence, and instructed the officer to assess the threat perception and, if necessary, provide adequate security.
The petitioners, both majors aged 18 and 19, filed the present criminal writ petition seeking police protection from private respondents, who had allegedly threatened their life and personal liberty. They submitted that they intended to marry once petitioner No.2 attains the eligible age of 21 years, and until then had chosen to reside together in a live-in relationship under an agreement executed on 27.10.2025. The petitioners approached the Nodal Officer of Police Station Kunhadi on 13.11.2025 and 17.11.2025 through written representations requesting protection, but no action was taken.
Their counsel stated that threats arose because the family members of petitioner No.1 did not consent to their decision to live together. The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court decision in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, asserting that even if one partner has not attained the marriageable age, the relationship is not unlawful and they retain the right to cohabit.
The State opposed the petition, arguing that petitioner No.2, being below 21, could neither enter into a valid marriage nor be permitted to remain in a live-in relationship. The Court examined the material, including provisions on marriageable age, and considered the petition solely on the issue of protection of life and liberty.
The Court recorded that “both of them are major and have attained the age of majority and maturity and they have decided to perform marriage with each other” and that the only hurdle was the age requirement for petitioner No.2. It further stated that “they cannot be left at the mercy of the private respondents, who are against their aforesaid decision.”
Referring to Lata Singh v. State of UP, the Court observed that “a live in-relationship between two consensual adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence.” It added that because petitioner No.2 had not attained 21 years, “the petitioners cannot be deprived to live together in such type of relationship.”
The Court reproduced the reasoning from the coordinate Bench in Rekha Meghwanshi, including the observation that “the issue in hand, however, is not marriage of the petitioners, but the deprivation of fundamental right of seeking protection of life and liberty.” It recorded that the fundamental right under Article 21 “must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.”
It further noted that “Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major” and that “Mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age… would not deprive them of their fundamental right.”
The Court also cited the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s view that “marriage is not a must for security to be provided to a runaway couple” and that “the concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one.”
Turning to the Supreme Court’s decision in Nandakumar, the Court quoted that “even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock… they have right to live together even outside wedlock” and that a live-in relationship “is now recognized by the Legislature itself under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”
It added that Article 21 protects life and personal liberty and that any threat amounts to violation, and noted that under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, “every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and personal liberty of the citizens.”
The Court directed that since the petitioners had already approached the Nodal Officer with representations, “it is expected from the Nodal Officer to decide the representation so submitted by them in accordance with law and ensure that after analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, he may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners.”
“The instant criminal writ petition stands disposed of” together with the stay application and all pending applications. Whatever has been observed by this Court in the present order is only for the purpose of disposal of the instant criminal writ petition and the same shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated, if any, against the petitioners.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Satyam Khandelwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Choudhary, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Priya Suman & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:48775
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1537/2025
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
