IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA nd ON THE 22 OF MAY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 13463 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

1. SHIVANI KUSHWAH D/O SURESH KUSHWAH, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, BAROD VIDISHA, P.S. TYONDA, VIDHISHA. AT PRESENT- VIRAT NAGAR NEAR DARGAH, MUSAKHEDI (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. ANUJ SINGH S/O JUGRAJ SINGH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEAR S, RESIDENTS: MUHASA, P.S.TYONDA VIDISHA(M.P.) R/O: AT PRESENT VIRAT NAGAR NEAR DARGAH, MUSAKHEDI INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONERS (BY Ms. SHIVANI MEENA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE COLLECTOR VIDISHA, COLLECTORATE, VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE S.P. OFFICE, VIDISHA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. INCHARGE OF POLICE POLICE STATION, TYONDA, VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. POLICE COMMISSIONER INDORE DISTRICT-

INDORE(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE OFFICE RURAL AREA INDORE (GRAMIN KSHETRA) MOTI TABELA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH

7. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER POLICE SDOP OFFICE, AZAD NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

8. OFFICE IN CHARGE POLICE STATION AZAD NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

9. SURESH KUSHWAH S/O MUKUNDI OCCUPATION:

NA, R/O. BAROD, P.S TYONDA, BASODA VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

10. JUGRAJ S/O LAKSHMAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR, R/O. MUHASA, P.S. TYONDA VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI A.S. PARIHAR - P.L. FOR STATE )

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking direction to the State authorities to provide police protection to them so as to protect their fundamental right to life and personal liberty.

2. Though petitioner No.1 is aged 18 years but petitioner No.2 is aged 20 years. The petitioners have contended that they are living together in a live in relationship and since they are facing threat they deserve to be granted police protection.

3 . The petitioner No.2 is neither of marriageable age nor could have married petitioner No.1. The relationship of the petitioners is not having any legal sanctity and they do not have any legally enforceable right to live together which can be directed to be protected. There is no corresponding duty upon any of the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioners for the purpose of saving their live in relationship. The petitioners may live together since they are adults but are not entitled to claim police protection in respect of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH their live in relationship. Thus I do not find that the petitioners have any legal right which can be directed to be protected by the respondents.

4 . The petition is found to be devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.

(PRANAY VERMA)

JUDGE SS/-

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHAILESH