The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution stands on a higher pedestal and cannot be denied to a couple living together, even if the male partner has not attained the legal marriageable age of 21 years.
The Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed this order on December 1, 2025, in the case S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1537/2025. The petitioners sought police protection against the private respondents, who are the family members of the female petitioner.
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction to the police authorities to provide protection. Petitioner No. 1 (the female) is 18 years old, and Petitioner No. 2 (the male) is 19 years old. Being adults, they decided to perform marriage after the male partner attained the eligible age of 21. Until then, they decided to reside together in a live-in relationship and executed a live-in relationship agreement on October 27, 2025.
The petitioners alleged that the family members of Petitioner No. 1 did not consent to their relationship and threatened to harm their life and liberty. Consequently, the petitioners submitted representations to the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Kunadi, Kota, on November 13, 2025, and November 17, 2025, seeking protection. However, claiming that no action was taken, they filed the instant criminal writ petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Satyam Khandelwal, relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Nandakumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Kerala & Ors. (2018). He argued that the Apex Court held that even if a groom is below 21 years of age, the marriage is not void but voidable. Furthermore, he submitted that such couples have a right to live together outside of wedlock, as live-in relationships are recognized under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Vivek Choudhary, opposed the petition. He contended that since the male petitioner is 19 years old, he has not attained the legal age for marriage (21 years). The State argued that “neither he can perform marriage nor he can be allowed to stay in a live-in relationship,” and thus the petition should be rejected.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that while Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prescribes the minimum age of marriage as 18 for the bride and 21 for the bridegroom, the petitioners are majors who have decided to live together.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2006), noting that a live-in relationship between consenting adults does not amount to an offence.
The bench also relied extensively on a recent Coordinate Bench judgment in Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on August 21, 2024), which held:
“Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.”
The Court further cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nandakumar, which clarified that a marriage where the male is under 21 is “voidable” under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, not void, and that adults have the right to live together even outside wedlock.
Rejecting the State’s objection regarding the male partner’s age, the Court observed:
“Merely because of the fact that petitioner No.2 is not of a marriageable age the petitioners cannot possibly be denied enforcement of their fundamental rights as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court emphasized that under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, every police officer is duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of citizens.
Decision
The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Nodal Officer to decide the representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with the law.
The Court ordered:
“It is expected from the Nodal Officer to decide the representation so submitted by them in accordance with law and ensure that after analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, he may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners.”
The Court clarified that these observations are solely for the disposal of the writ petition and shall not affect any other civil or criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
