IMPORTANT POINT
The legal point established is the requirement for a live-in relationship to fulfill conditions akin to marriage and the need for evidence of a permanent relationship to be considered for protection under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

Renu Agarwal, J.

1. 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 directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners as husband and wife and to direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to provide protection and security to the petitioners.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 is major aged about 19 years. As per her high school certificate the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 is 29.05.2004. It is also submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is unmarried and she fell in love with petitioner No. 2 who is aged about 19 years. It is also submitted that as per high school certificate the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 is 09.03.2004. It is also submitted that the petitioners are living in relationship since August, 2022. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 5 who is the father of the petitioner No. 1 is not happy with the choice of the petitioner No. 1 and has been constantly harassing and threatening the petitioner to their lives. It is also submitted that the petitioners moved an application to the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar seeking protection to their lives from respondent No. 5, however, no protection has been provided to the petitioners.

3. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court passed in the case of Deepika and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) ADJ 534 wherein it was held that “Where a boy and girl are major and they are living with their free will then nobody including their parents have any right to interfere with living together.” Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Nandkumar and another Vs. State of Kerala and others Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2018 wherein it was held that “insofar as the marriage of appellant No. 1 who was less than 21 years of age on the date of marriage was not of marriageable age with girl is concerned, it cannot be said that merely because the appellant No. 1 was less than 21 years of age, marriage between the parties is null and void.” Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Saloni Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P. and other Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7996 of 2023.

4. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the petitioner No. 1 has produced her high school certificate wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 29.05.2004 and the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 as per his high school certificate is 09.03.2004. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.2 is a major for all purposes other than marriage as prescribed by the Hindu Law. It is also submitted that as per their avernment made in the writ petition, the petitioners are living in relationship since August, 2022. It is also submitted that the petitioner No. 2 does not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed for a person to be in a live in relationship. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Asha Devi and another Vs. State of U.P. Writ C No. 18743 of 2020 to contend that the terms of live in relationship are the same as of marriage, hence, the prayer made in the writ petition is opposed.

5. I have heard the rival submissions advanced at the Bar and perused the record.

6. From the perusal of record it transpires that both the petitioners were major aged about 18 years in August, 2022 when they decided to live in relationship. Till date though the petitioner No. 2 is a major but not of marriageable age.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Deepika and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) ADJ 534 wherein it was held that “Where a boy and girl are major and they are living with their free will then nobody including their parents have any right to interfere with l