In a criminal writ petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court seeking protection from the private respondents and other family members, as well as for directions to the respondent authorities to refrain from harassing the petitioners, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand affirmed that the parties had a right to live together as they had attained the age of majority even if they were incompetent to get married, as had been previously decided in various cases.
The petitioners 1 and 2, aged 18 and 19 years respectively, wished to get married upon attaining the eligible age and, till then, decided to stay together in a live-in relationship, for which they executed a live-in relationship agreement on 27-10-2025.
It was contended that the family of petitioner 1 had not given their consent for said acts of the petitioners and had threatened them. The petitioners approached the SHO, Police Station Kunhadi, Kota, seeking protection by filing representations, but to no avail. Hence, the petitioners filed the present petition.
The Court noted Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), and stated that the only hurdle to the solemnization of the parties’ marriage was that the petitioner had not attained the age of 21. Reference was made to various decisions in similar matters wherein it had been decided that, being major, even if the parties were not competent to enter into a wedlock, they had the right to live together.
Further, it was stated that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and that any threat to the same would constitute a violation of the said fundamental right. Thus, the Court found no valid reason to take a different view from one taken in various decisions and expressed its expectation that the SHO would decide the representation while passing necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners.
The Court disposed of the petition, clarifying that the present order would not affect any future criminal or civil proceedings against the petitioner.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) – Mr. Satyam Khandelwal
For Respondent(s) – Mr. Vivek Choudhary
