ORDER

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-

I. -Relief:The petitioner prays for the following relief: It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to :-

i. Direct the respondent to give appropriates police protection to the petitioner's.

ii. Any other appropriate order this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be passed in favour of

iii. Allowed the petitioner no.1 to give her statement before the respondent no.2.

iv. To allows the present Writ Petition.

v. To grant any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case

The grievance of the petitioners is that they are residing together against SS18 iigg:1 nn4 ein: dg3 btiym: eS:E 1H6A-1R0 -H2A02S6EEN the wishes of their parents, but are apprehending that some untoward action may be taken by their parents and also the family members of petitioner no.1 are threatening the petitioners to kill them, thus, protection in this regard has been sought.

In support of her contention that protection can be granted to live in partner also, counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to a decision rendered by the case of Nandakumar vs. State of Kerala reported as (2018) 16 SCC 602, in which in a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court has taken note of the relationship between the persons involved, and opined that since both the persons were major, and even if they are not competent to enter into wedlock, they have a right to live together and even outside the wedlock. Thus, it is submitted that the present petitioners, who are entitled to reside together may be protected from any violence by any person or their parents.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that if such protection is granted it would not be in the larger interest of the society and would promote promiscuousness in the society.

Heard. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the documents filed on record, as also the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in para 10 of which it has been observed as under:-

“10.We need not go into this aspect in detail. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that both Appellant 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 recognized by the legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition since the petitioners are major and they are entitled to reside as per their SS1 S 8ii igg g :1nn n 4ein a :dg3 t u 4bt r iym e: eSN :E o 1H6 t A- V 1Re 0 - rH2 ifA0 ie 2Sd 6EEN own will and if they so decide, their choice needs to be protected from external forces.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed, and respondents are directed to provide such protection to the petitioners as required.

A copy of this order be supplied to the office of the Advocate General so that this order may be communicated to respondents No.2 and 3/concerned authorities for prompt compliance of the order.

The concerned SHO is also directed to share his/her mobile number with the petitioners so that they can reach him/her at any time, in case of any emergency.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed off.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the validity of the agreement regarding live-in-relationship sworn in by the petitioners and without entering into this aspect in detail, proceeded further to pass this order.