Allahabad High Court
KHUSHI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
Adult individuals in a consensual live-in relationship are entitled to protection of life and liberty under Article 21, and the State must not interfere, with police directed to provide protection upon request.
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 is paramount, irrespective of marital status. It held that no family member or private respondent can lawfully obstruct the petitioners' choice of partner. The court directed that the police, upon presentation of a certified copy of the order and proof of majority, must furnish immediate protection unless an FIR is filed against the petitioners. In cases where documentary proof of age is lacking, the police may verify age through permissible procedures. Accordingly, the petition was disposed with directions for police protection.
Issues considered
- Whether adult individuals in a consensual live-in relationship are entitled to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the State can be directed, via mandamus, to prevent interference by family members in such a relationship.
- Whether the absence of a formal marriage precludes the petitioners from obtaining police protection.
- Whether police may act without an FIR when the petitioners are threatened.
Subjects
- live-in relationship
- right to life
- Article 21
- mandamus
- police protection
- personal liberty
- family harassment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 34195 of 2026
Khushi And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rupesh Kumar Singh
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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
WRIC No. 34195 of 2026
2
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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant petition is disposed
off.
September 30, 2026
Priyanka
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRIYANKA KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…