IMPORTANT POINT
A live-in relationship cannot be legally recognized if one party is still married, as the marriage remains valid until dissolved.

JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and material placed on record.

2. As per the office report dated 17.7.2023, steps has not been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners for service of notice on respondent No. 4 whereas learned counsel for the petitioners denied this statement of office report and stated that he has already taken steps and prayed that present writ petition be decided on merits as per the averments made in the writ petition and material on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners belongs to Hindu religion and have attained age of majority. They are presently living in live-in relationship out of love and intimacy. They are sui juris and have every right to live together. They are able to understand their interest. They want to solemnized their marriage but as soon petitioner No. 1 has not obtained divorce from her husband, the petitioners could not enter into marital alliance. Their live-in relationship is strongly opposed by respondent No. 4, who is husband of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners are apprehending danger to their live and liberty from respondent No. 4. The petitioner No. 1 has parted with her husband i.e. respondent No. 4. She even moved an application before S.O. concerned seeking protection for herself as well as petitioner No. 2 but no action has been taken by the police in the matter. She moved an application before S.P. Muzaffarnagar for protection through registered post on 8.2.2023, for the same relief. The date of birth of petitioner No. 1 is mentioned as 1.2.2003 and that of petitioner No. 2 is 14.5.2001 in their respective Adhar cards and thus, they have attained age of majority. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited a judgement of Apex Court in the case of Nandakumar and another v. State of Kerla and others, 2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 899, in support of his contention.

4. Per contra, learned Standing counsel opposed the prayer made in present writ petition and submitted that as the petitioners have admitted that petitioner No. 1 has married with respondent No. 4 and their marriage has not been dissolved by any competent Court, therefore, her live-in relationship with petitioner No. 2 cannot be accepted.

5. Sofaras the question of age of petitioner No. 1 is concerned, this is admitted fact that he has not attained age of 21 years but has attained age of majority as provided under law i.e. 18 years. In the judgement of Nandakumar and another v. State of Kerala (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the judgement and order of High Court and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, who solemnize marriage with a girl of 19 years of age but had not attained age of 21 years on the date of marriage. However, had attained age of majority on the date of marriage. High Court had entrusted the custody of the women to her father. Against that order, the husband came before Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it Apex Court held that insofar as marriage of appellant No. 1 (who was less than 21 years of age on the date of marriage and was not of marriageable age) with Thushara is concerned, it cannot be said that merely because appellant No. 1 was less than 21 years of age, marriage between the parties is null and void. Appellant No. 1 as well as Thushara are Hindus. Such a marriage is not a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and as per the provisions of Section 12, which can be attracted in such a case, at the most, the marriage would be a voidable marriage.

6. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that “We need not go into this aspect in detail. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that both appellant No. 1 and Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that 'live-in relationship' is now