Back
Major Woman’s Right to Live with Partner Independently Upheld: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Police Protection
In a significant judicial affirmation of , the has ruled that an adult woman possesses the fundamental right to choose her living arrangements, irrespective of whether she has reached the legal age for marriage. The judgment, delivered by Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta, underscores that the right to is protected under the law for any individual who has attained the .
The Choice to Coexist The case involved a young couple—a 20-year-old woman and a 26-year-old man—who sought the court’s intervention after facing threats from the woman’s family. The petitioners, desiring to live together against the wishes of their parents, approached the court for protection, fearing potential violence or the registration of false criminal cases against the man.
The couple’s legal counsel emphasized that despite the petitioner’s age being 20, she is a legal major and should not be subjected to harassment for exercising her right to live with the person of her choice.
The State’s Argument on "Social Morality" The State, represented by the Government Advocate, opposed the plea. Their argument rested on the fact that the woman had not yet attained the age of 21—the threshold for marriageable age in India. The State argued that granting protection in such instances could be seen as promoting "promiscuousness" and would not be in the larger interest of society.
The Legal Threshold: vs. Marriageable Age Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta addressed the conflict by distinguishing between the age of marriage and the right of an adult to exercise personal autonomy. Relying on the ’s landmark judgment in ( ), the High Court noted that even if two individuals are not yet competent to marry, they possess the inherent right to live together.
The court further noted that " " are recognized under the , indicating a clear legislative and judicial intent to treat such arrangements with legal legitimacy.
Key Observations The judgment features several critical remarks regarding the intersection of personal freedom and state duty:
-
"Both Appellant 1 and Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into
, they have right to live together even outside
."
-
"It would not be out of place to mention that ‘live-in relationship’ is now recognized by the legislature itself..."
-
"Since she is a major, she is entitled to reside as per her own will, and if she so decides, her choice needs to be protected from external forces."
Court’s Decision: A Mandate for Security Allowing the petition, the court did not merely affirm the couple's rights but provided a tangible mechanism for their safety. The court directed the to ensure compliance with protection orders and ordered the concerned to share their personal mobile number with the petitioners for 24/7 access in the event of an emergency.
As noted in , this ruling reinforces that the state’s primary role is to protect the choice of a major individual, standing as a bulwark against external coercive forces that attempt to override in the name of social norms. The petition was subsequently disposed of, with the court ensuring the petitioners are fully aware of their newly affirmed legal standing.
