Allahabad High Court
ANAMIKA YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
Adult unmarried partners have a fundamental right to cohabit, and the State must protect them under Article 21, prohibiting interference by family members and directing police to provide protection.
Summary
The petitioners, two adult unmarried individuals in a live‑in relationship, sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful cohabitation and to provide police protection against threats from family members. The Court noted that the facts were analogous to a prior decision (Akanksha v. State of U.P.) and reiterated that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends to adult couples irrespective of marital status. It held that no family member or private respondent can lawfully obstruct the petitioners’ choice of partner and that the State has a constitutional duty to safeguard this right. The Court directed that any disturbance should be reported to the Commissioner of Police, who must provide immediate protection provided the petitioners are adults and have not committed any offence. Police officers may verify age through documentary proof or ossification tests but may not take coercive action absent an FIR. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with directions for protection.
Issues considered
- Whether adult unmarried partners have a fundamental right to live together protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the State can be directed to provide police protection to such couples against family harassment.
- Whether police may take coercive action against the couple without an FIR.
Subjects
- live‑in relationship
- right to life
- Article 21
- police protection
- unmarried couples
- fundamental rights
- constitutional duty
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 24192 of 2026
Anamika Yadav And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anjana Devi, Dhirpal Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
3. 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.
4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the
petitioners are major. 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.
5. The issue involved in the present petition has already been dealt with in
Writ-C No. 35171 of 2025 (Akanksha and Another vs. State of U.P.
and Three Others), decided on 17.12.2025. The facts of the present case
is similar to the facts of Akanksha (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
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
WRIC No. 24192 of 2026
2
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 8, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…