The court emphasized the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, asserting protection for adults in a live-in relationship against familial threats, regardless of marriageable age.

ORDER :

1. The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this cri. Writ petition and by exercising the power conferred section 226 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice pass the order or directions to the respondents to provided the protection to the petitioners to their life and liberty and further respondent no. 1 to 3 be directed to give the protection to the petitioners from respondent no 4 for their life and liberty.

The respondent no. 4 directed not to interfere in any manner in the life of petitioners and further he directed not to create any problem in any manner in their life and may not cause any type of injury to the petitioners and stop threatening them.”

2. By way of filing this criminal writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to provide protection to the petitioners from the private respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both petitioners are adults and want to perform marriage with each other, but the petitioner No.2 has not attained the age of eligibility for getting married with the petitioner No.1, as he is below the age of 21 years. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, they have decided to stay together in a live in- relationship, till attaining the age of marriage. However, family members of the petitioners have not consented to such act of the petitioners and have threatened them with causing harm to their life and personal liberty. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners had approached the Nodal Officer, i.e., SHO Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, Sawai Madhopur by way of filing a representation, but no heed has been paid to the said representation. Under these compelling circumstances, they have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. The issue involved in this petition is no more res integra since the same has been decided by this Court in the case of Priya Suman & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1537/2025 on 01.12.2025 and it has been held in Paras 7 to 13 as under:-

“7. As per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the minimum age of the bride and bridegroom should be 18 years and 21 years respectively to perform marriage. It is admitted case of the petitioners 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. The only hurdle and rider between solemnization of their marriage is the age of the petitioner No.2, who has not attained the eligible age of 21 years to perform marriage with the petitioner No.1. Hence, they cannot be left at the mercy of the private respondents, who are against their aforesaid decision.

8. In Lata Singh Vs. State of UP & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 2522, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a live in-relationship between two consensual adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence. In the case at hand, the petitioner No.2 has not yet attained the age of 21 years, therefore, he not being of marriageable age, the petitioners cannot be deprived to live together in such type of relationship.

9. Even, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1730/2024 vide order dated 21.08.2024 dealt with the identical situation, has held in Para Nos.5 to 12 as under:-

“5. Facts, as pleaded in the petition, succinctly are that petitioner No.1 born on 02.01.2004 and petitioner No.2, born on 08.05.2005, are purportedly in love with each other. They have been living together in relationship for past couple of days.

6. Petitioners have decided to get married once p