Rajasthan High Court Grants Protection to Young Couple in Live-in Relationship Amid Family Threats

Case Overview

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, in a significant ruling on December 1, 2025, addressed the fundamental rights of two young adults seeking protection for their consensual live-in relationship. The petitioners, Priya Suman (18 years old) and Rahul Prajapati (19 years old), approached the court via Criminal Writ Petition No. 1537/2025 against threats from Priya's family members. The respondents included the State of Rajasthan, various police officials, and Priya's relatives, including her father Giriraj Suman, mother Mamta, and neighbor Anita.

The couple, both legally major under Indian law, expressed their intent to marry once Rahul reaches the age of 21 but wished to live together in the interim. They had executed a live-in relationship agreement on October 27, 2025, and filed representations with the Kunadi Police Station on November 13 and 17, 2025, seeking safeguards. Alleging inaction by authorities and threats to their life and liberty from disapproving family, they invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India for protection.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand presided over the case, emphasizing the primacy of constitutional rights over societal or familial objections.

Key Arguments Presented

The petitioners' counsel, Mr. Satyam Khandelwal, argued that both individuals are majors capable of making informed decisions about their personal lives. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2018, decided April 20, 2018), he contended that even if a marriage is voidable under Sections 5 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, due to the groom being under 21, the couple retains the right to cohabit outside wedlock. Live-in relationships are recognized under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and no offense is committed by consenting heterogenic adults, as held in Lata Singh v. State of UP & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522).

The counsel highlighted the family's opposition and threats, underscoring the need for police protection under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, to prevent harm.

In opposition, Public Prosecutor Mr. Vivek Choudhary argued that Rahul's age disqualifies him from marriage under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, extending this to bar any live-in arrangement. He urged rejection of the petition, asserting it contravenes eligibility rules for males (21 years) and females (18 years).

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The court extensively relied on Supreme Court and High Court precedents affirming the right to personal choice and protection from honor-based violence. In Lata Singh v. State of UP , the apex court ruled that live-in relationships between consenting adults do not constitute an offense, prioritizing liberty over familial interference.

The Nandakumar case was pivotal, where the Supreme Court clarified that a marriage involving a groom under 21 is at most voidable, not void, and couples have the right to live together regardless. The bench noted: "Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock... they have right to live together even outside wedlock."

A coordinate bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1730/2024, August 21, 2024) addressed a similar scenario, directing police verification of threats and protection under Article 21, stating: "Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21... must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage."

The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Seema Kaur v. State of Punjab (CRWP No. 4725 of 2021) and the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) were cited to reinforce that denying protection to live-in couples would violate Article 21 and enable honor killings prevalent in regions like Rajasthan.

Distinguishing quashing of proceedings from protection orders, the court clarified that the focus is on liberty, not marital validity. Excerpt from judgment: "The only hurdle... is the age of the petitioner No.2... Hence, they cannot be left at the mercy of the private respondents."

Other references included Mafi & Anr. v. State of Haryana (CRWP No. 691/2021, January 25, 2021), affirming majors' rights to choose partners without parental dictation, and Suman Meena v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024, March 3, 2025).

Court's Decision and Implications

The High Court disposed of the petition with directions to the Nodal Officer (Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kunadi) to decide the petitioners' representations promptly, assess threat perceptions, and provide adequate protection if necessary. It clarified that observations are limited to this writ and do not impact any ongoing criminal or civil proceedings.

This ruling reinforces Article 21's expansive scope, ensuring state protection for consensual adult relationships, even if not yet marriageable. It signals to authorities a duty to safeguard young couples from familial threats, potentially curbing honor violence in conservative areas. For legal professionals, it underscores live-in relationships' legitimacy under domestic violence laws and constitutional protections, promoting individual autonomy over age-based restrictions.

The decision aligns with evolving jurisprudence, urging police to act proactively under statutory duties, and serves as a precedent for similar petitions across Indian High Courts.