Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench Protects Live-in Couple’s Right to Life and Liberty Despite Boy Not Being of Marriageable Age

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, in Priya Suman & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., has once again reaffirmed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution stands on a higher pedestal than social disapproval of relationships. The Court held that even where a boy has not yet attained the statutory age of marriage (21 years), two consenting majors who choose to live together in a live-in relationship are entitled to protection of their life and liberty, and the State is duty-bound to ensure such protection. 

In this case, petitioner no.1, an 18-year-old girl, and petitioner no.2, a 19-year-old boy, were residing together at Kota. They had executed a live-in relationship agreement on 27.10.2025 and expressed their intention to marry once the boy attains the requisite age of 21 years under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The girl’s family members strongly opposed this decision and allegedly issued threats to the couple, creating a serious apprehension of harm to their life and personal liberty. The petitioners approached the Nodal Officer (SHO, Police Station Kunadi, Kota) through written representations dated 13.11.2025 and 17.11.2025, but no effective action was taken, compelling them to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking protection. 

The core legal issue before the Court was narrow yet sensitive: whether two young adults, both majors but with the boy below the marriageable age of 21 years, can seek protection of their life and liberty while living together in a consensual live-in relationship, especially when their families oppose the relationship and allegedly threaten them. The State opposed the petition by arguing that since the boy had not yet attained the age of marriage, he could neither lawfully marry nor be allowed to stay in a live-in relationship, and therefore the petition itself deserved to be rejected. 

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected this approach and drew a clear distinction between (i) the validity of marriage under personal law and (ii) the independent guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court acknowledged that the minimum marriageable age is 18 years for the bride and 21 years for the bridegroom, and that the only hurdle in solemnisation of marriage in the present case was the age of petitioner no.2. However, the Court emphasised that this statutory bar on immediate marriage cannot be a ground to leave the couple at the mercy of hostile family members or to deny them protection against threats to life and safety. 

The Court placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2018), where the husband was below 21 years at the time of marriage. The Supreme Court had held that such a marriage between two Hindus is not void but at best voidable under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and more importantly, that even if the parties were not competent to marry, they still had the right to live together in a live-in relationship. The present judgment follows the same principle by accepting that “live-in relationship” is a legally recognised arrangement under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that two majors are free to cohabit even outside wedlock. 

Justice Dhand also referred to the landmark decision in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522), wherein the Supreme Court categorically held that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults does not constitute an offence, and that the couple’s choice of partner must be respected. The Court then examined a series of High Court decisions, including Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1730/2024, Principal Seat Jodhpur), Seema Kaur v. State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana High Court), and Mafi & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (CRWP No. 691/2021), which uniformly hold that even if the relationship or marriage is not strictly valid in law, the State cannot abdicate its constitutional duty to protect the lives of adult individuals facing threats on account of their relationship choices. 

A particularly important part of the reasoning is the Court’s reiteration that Article 21 is not conditioned upon the legality or social acceptance of a personal relationship. The judgment notes that the right to choose one’s partner and to cohabit with that person is an inseparable facet of personal liberty and human dignity. The Court echoes the Supreme Court’s observations in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, where honour killings and family-driven violence against couples were strongly condemned and it was held that State authorities must protect couples from such illegal interference in their personal choices. By quoting and relying on these precedents, the Rajasthan High Court sends a clear message that parents and relatives cannot dictate the life choices of adult children or subject them to threats merely because they disagree with a relationship. 

The judgment also highlights the statutory duty of the police machinery. Under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, every police officer is duty-bound to protect the life and personal liberty of citizens. Justice Dhand observes that when a couple has already approached the Nodal Officer with a specific complaint and threat perception, the officer cannot ignore such representation. Instead, it is expected that the representation be considered in accordance with law, the threat perception be objectively analysed, and appropriate security be provided where necessary. The Court, therefore, directs the Nodal Officer (SHO, Police Station Kunadi, Kota) to decide the petitioners’ representation and, after assessing the threat, pass suitable orders for granting security and protection to the couple. 

At the same time, the Court carefully confines the scope of its order. It clarifies that all observations have been made only for the limited purpose of disposing of the criminal writ petition seeking protection, and that these observations shall not affect any civil or criminal proceedings that may be pending or may be initiated against the petitioners. By doing so, the Court balances the need to safeguard the petitioners’ fundamental rights with the need to avoid prejudging any other proceedings concerning them. 

In effect, this decision fits within the broader constitutional trend of recognising individual autonomy in matters of marriage, relationships, and cohabitation, especially in cases involving “runaway couples” or relationships opposed by families. For lawyers and litigants in Rajasthan, the judgment is significant because it comes from the Jaipur Bench in a fact situation where the boy is not yet of marriageable age. The Court has made it clear that the age bar under marriage law does not dilute the State’s obligation to protect two consenting majors who choose to live together. It further strengthens the jurisprudence that life and liberty under Article 21 override social notions of honour and perceived invalidity of marriage. 

For young adults facing threats due to inter-caste, inter-religious, or otherwise disapproved relationships, this judgment provides an important legal precedent. It reassures that they can approach the High Court under Article 226 to seek protection, even where questions of marriageable age arise, and that the police authorities are under a statutory and constitutional duty to respond promptly and fairly to such representations. At the same time, the judgment reminds families that disagreement with their children’s choices cannot translate into unlawful coercion or violence. The Court ultimately reinforces a simple but powerful constitutional position: the State must protect life and liberty first; questions of social approval or even formal validity of a marriage come later

Read Complete Judgment Here

By Advocate Bhuvnesh Kumar Goyal