JUDGMENT : 

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful life and also for a direction to provide protection.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major and they are living together on their own free will, but the respondent no. 4 is causing hindrance in their peaceful life and it is prayed that the respondent- Police Authorities may be directed to restrain the responder no. 4 from interfering in the petitioners' life.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 1 moved an application to S.S.P., Saharanpur on 25.9.2025 wherein she stated that she is the wife of the respondent no. 4 and now she has started living with the petitioner no. 2 in a relationship and her husband/respondent no. 4 is threatening her with consequences. The application dated 25.9.2025 has been appended as annexure no. 3 to this petition.

6. The learned Standing Counsel, as per instructions, submits that this is the second marriage of the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Sonam and both the petitioners are living in a relationship for the last two years and they have no apprehension of life threat from respondent no. 4. No marriage certificate has been appended by the petitioners since the petitioner no. 1 is already married and no divorce decree has been passed by any competent court having jurisdiction. Only divorce suit has been filed which is still pending and the petitioner no. 1 is still legally wedded wife of her earlier husband Rajat, however, the petitioner no. 1 may approach the Police Authorities, in case, any harassment or humiliation is caused by her earlier husband Rajat. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit wherein it is mentioned that divorce petition has been filed by the petitioner no. 1 against her husband Rajat on 30.10.2025 i.e. after passing the order by this Court on 16.10.2025 whereby it was observed that the petitioner no. 1 was already married and no divorce had taken place between the petitioner no. 1 and her husband/respondent no. 4 and she was directed to file copy of the divorce petition.

7. I have heard rival submissions of both the parties.

8. In the case of Asha Devi and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others passed in Writ (C) No.18743 of 2020, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court formulated two questions as under:-

"(i) Whether the petitioners, who claim themselves to be living together as husband and wife; can be granted protection when the petitioner No.1 is legally wedded wife of someone else and has not taken divorce sofar ?

(ii) Whether protection to petitioners as husband and wife or as live-in- relationship can be granted in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when their living together may constitute offences under Sections 494/495 I.P.C. ?"

9. In the judgment of Asha Devi (Supra), Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has discussed the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469", in which the Hon'ble Apex court held that:-

"32. In our opinion not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned by us above must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence.

If a man has a `keep' whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage'."

(emphasis supplied)

10. In the judgment of Asha Devi (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court on the basis of various judgments of High Court held that