##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:14383]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 70/2026

1. Krishna D/o Shri Radheyshyam, Wife of Harilal, Age About

29 Years, Resident of Village Devpura Talwas, Police Station Karwar, District Bundi (Rajasthan) At Present Resident of Village Donaycha, Tehsil and Police Station

Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

2. Lalaram Bairwa S/o Shri Manohar Lal Bairwa, Aged About

33 Years, Resident of Village Donaycha, Tehsil and Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopir (Rajasthan)

3. S.H.O. Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopir (Rajasthan)

4. Superintendent of Police, Bundi (Rajasthan)

5. S.H.O. Police Station Karwar, District Bundi (Rajasthan)

6. Manodri W/o Late Chiranji Lal, Resident of Near Sanganer Police Choki, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

7. Harilal S/o Gaindi Lal, Resident of Village Devpura, Police Station Karwar, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swati Sharma, Adv., for Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Judgment / Order

07/04/2026 The defects pointed out by the Office are waived.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the

learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:20:30 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:31:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:14383] (2 of 3) [CRLW-70/2026]

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking protection of their life and personal liberty. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that petitioner No.1

is already married. The issue as to whether a live-in-relationship between a married and an unmarried person is legally permissible and whether such persons are entitled to protection, has already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rashika Khandal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in

2021 SCC Online Raj. 4296

In the aforesaid judgment, while taking into consideration

law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469, it was held that such a relationship is not permissible and consequently, the petitioners are not entitled to seek protection. Relevant paras of the judgment in Rashika Khandal (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:

“2. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that Petitioner No.2 is already married. A live-in-relationship between a

married and unmarried person is not permissible.

3. The pre-requities for a live-in-relationship as held by the Apex Court in “D.Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469” is that the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses and must be of legal age to marry or qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including

being unmarried.

4. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed.”

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:20:30 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:31:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:14383] (3 of 3) [CRLW-70/2026]

In view of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments of

Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the criminal

writ petition is dismissed.

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

YOGESH KUMAR /279

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 02:20:30 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 10:31:34 PM)