Allahabad High Court
ANJALI MISHRA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
Adult individuals in a consensual live‑in relationship are entitled to protection under Article 21, and the State must not interfere; police must provide protection upon request.
Summary
The petitioners, two adult unmarried individuals of different faiths in a live‑in relationship, alleged harassment and threats from family members and sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the police to protect them. The court observed that a similar matter had been decided in Noori v. State of U.P., where adult live‑in partners were granted protection. Relying on Article 21, the court held that the right to life and personal liberty extends to consensual adult relationships irrespective of marital status. It directed that police officers, upon verification of the petitioners' majority and voluntary cohabitation, must provide immediate protection and cannot take coercive action unless an FIR is registered. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the State can be directed to provide police protection to adult unmarried partners in a live‑in relationship facing family harassment
- Whether Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection of life and liberty irrespective of marital status
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel police action in the absence of an FIR
- Whether courts can intervene to prevent interference in the peaceful cohabitation of consenting adults
Subjects
- live-in relationship
- right to life
- Article 21
- police protection
- unmarried couples
- fundamental rights
- mandamus
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18039 of 2026
Anjali Mishra And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anubhav Pandey, Pranjal Singh,
Satyendra Kumar Mishra, Vandana
Singh Parmar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere
in their peaceful life and also for a direction to provide protection.
3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though both
the petitioners are major but they are of different faiths. They are
unmarried and are staying in a live-in relationship. Further, it is stated that
private respondent and other family members have got annoyed and there
is serious danger to their lives as they are being threatened and harassed.
Hence, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of a direction upon the Police
Authorities to protect their life from the private respondents.
4. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel opposes the prayer made
in the writ petition.
5. The issue involved in the present petition has already been dealt with in
Writ-C No. 41127 of 2025 (Noori and Another vs. State of U.P. and o
thers), reported in 2026 SCC OnLine All 456, wherein a coordinate
Bench of this Court, while allowing a bunch of writ petitions of similar
nature protected such petitioners having different faiths, who were staying
in a live in relationship on their own free will and choice. Further, the
facts of the present case are similar to the facts of Noori and another
(supra), therefore, the present writ petition is being disposed of in the
following terms.
6. Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not
for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a
WRIC No. 18039 of 2026
2
hindrance to their peaceful existence. It is the bounden duty of the State,
as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and
liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much
higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major, married or
unmarried. Mere fact that the petitioners have not solemnized marriage,
would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in the
Constitution of India being citizens of India. This Court has no hesitation
to hold that the Constitutional's fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct,
under the Constitutional scheme it must be protected, regardless of the
solemnization of marriage or even the absence of any marriage between
the parties.
7. The petitioners herein, who are major, have taken a decision to reside
together without the sanctity of the marriage and it is not for the Courts to
judge them on their decision. If the petitioners herein have not committed
any offence, this Court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of
protection cannot be acceded to.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together peacefully
and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. As
right to life is a fundamental life ensured under Article 21 of the
Constitution wherein it is provided that no person shall be deprived of his
right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established
by law.
9. In case, any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the
petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Commissioner of
Police/SSP/SP concerned with certified copy of this order and the Police
Officer after being satisfied that the petitioners are major and willingly
living together, will provide immediate protection to the petitioners. If the
petitioners are educated and they produce their educational certificates
and other certificates admissible under law, from which it is evident that
they have attained the majority and they are living with their free will
then no Police Officer shall take any coercive action against them unless
an F.I.R. is registered against them in respect of any offence whatsoever.
If they do not have any documentary proof regarding age and they come
from rural background and or illiterate/semi-literate, the Police Officer
can subject such boy or girl to ossification test to verify their correct age
and he can also follow the other procedure permissible under the law.
10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant petition is
disposed off.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 24, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…