IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the protection of live-in-relationships must comply with the statutory provisions, including the requirement for conversion under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Yogesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with prayer for issuing writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to secure the security of life and property of the petitioners from the respondent No.4.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major and are of marriageable age. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 is daughter of respondent No.4 and she belong to Hindu community. The date of birth of petitioner No. 1 is 12.12.1991 and the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is 16.11.1987 and he belongs to muslim community, in support thereof the petitioners have brought on record their High School marksheet-cum-Certificates respectively which are annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition respectively. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are living in live-in-relationship since about six-seven months both the petitioners intend to marry each other after lawful conversion of their religion, however, presently they are living in live-in-relationship as the right is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and there is no need of conversion of religion in live-in-relationship. It is contended that father and family members of the first petitioner are not happy with the relationship of the petitioners. The petitioners have apprehension of honour killing from the family member of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 has also moved an application dated 26.02.2024 to the Commissioner of Police Station, District-Jhansi seeking their protection but to no avail. Copy of the application dated 26.02.2024 is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the petition. It is further contended that till date, no F.I.R. has been lodged relating to their live-in-relationship and both the petitioners are living together happily.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his contentions relied upon the case of Razia and Anr. in Writ-C No. 27338 of 2023, wherein, it has been observed that a boy or girl, who have attained majority, is free to marry or live with a person of his/her choice and no one including his/her parents or anyone on their behalf can interfere in their right to freedom of choosing a partner which emanates from Right to life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are now forced to run from one place to another in order to save their life and themselves. Petitioners also made several oral and written complaints before the police officials but till date no action has been taken by them, hence, it is prayed that live-in-relationship be protected till they marry with each other after lawful conversion of their religion. It is lastly contended that parents of petitioner No.1 are unhappy with the relationship of the petitioners and has approached the Police, who are constantly harassing the petitioners and disturbing their peaceful life, hence, it is prayed that live-in-relationship be protected till they marry with each other after lawful conversion of their religion.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that petitioners have not applied for conversion of their religion under Section 8 and 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, so far neither the current marital status of petitioners is disclosed anywhere in the petition, hence the live-in-relationship of the petitioners cannot be protected and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to priva