JUDGMENT :

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.)

Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to protect and safe-guard the life and liberty of the petitioners as well as directing to the respondent no. 4 to not to interfere in the peaceful life of the petitioners without any authority of law as such they are living as live-in relationship as husband and wife.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mohd Hamid, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Sri Hasan Abbas and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are presently living in live-in relationship out of free will and choice after attaining the age of majority. The date of birth of petitioner No. 1 is mentioned as 08.03.2000 in her Class VIII Transfer Certificate as well as in her Voter I.D. Card, the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 is mentioned as 01.01.1998 in his Aadhar Card. They have right to live together without interference of any person being consenting adults. They have filed joint affidavit in support of their contentions made in writ petition. Petitioner No. 2 is doing a private job at District- Saharanpur and earns around Rs. 15,000/- per month and is able to maintain petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 has taken a categorical stand that she had left her matrimonial home with petitioner No. 2 out of her free will. Petitioner No. 1 was previously married with one Rahul son of Chhetrapal resident of Roorkee, District- Haridwar, State of Uttarakand and they got their married dissolved through mutual compromise on 16.09.2022 executed before notary public at Saharanpur and since then, petitioner No. 1 is not concerned with her previous husband in any manner. It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of their family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered. Petitioner No.1 had moved an application before respondent No. 2- S.P., Saharanpur, seeking protection for herself and petitioner No. 2, but no action has been taken.

4. Per contra, learned Standing counsel submitted that this is admitted fact that the marriage of petitioner No. 1 with her previous husband Rahul has not been dissolved by orders of any competent court and the mode and manner of dissolution of marriage of petitioner No. 1 and her previous husband cannot have sanctity of law as both of them belong to Hindu community.

5. Learned standing counsel also placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Asha Devi v. State of U.P. in Writ C. No. 18743 of 2020 decided on 01.12.2020. Paragraphs Nos. 11, 17, 18 and 21 of same is reproduced below:

11. Live-in-relationship is a relationship which has not been socially accepted in India, unlike many other countries. In Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and in Indra Sarma v. V. K.V. Sarma (paras 40, 42, 43 and 53) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral. In D. Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal (paras 31 and 32) Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the phrase "relationship in the nature of marriage" as under :-

"31. In our opinion a "relationship in the nature of marriage" is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not being formally married :-

(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

(b) They must be of legal age to marry.

(c) They must be