Allahabad High Court

HEMLATA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: GAUTAM CHOWDHARY

Holding

Adult individuals in a live‑in relationship are entitled to protection of life and liberty under Article 21, and the State must not interfere with their peaceful cohabitation.

Summary

The petitioners, two adult unmarried individuals living together in a live‑in relationship, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful cohabitation and to provide police protection against threats from family members. The Court observed that the facts were analogous to the earlier decision in Akanksha v. State of U.P., and emphasized that the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 is paramount irrespective of marital status. It held that no person may obstruct the petitioners’ choice of partner and that, provided they are major and have not committed any offence, the police must furnish immediate protection upon verification of their age and voluntary cohabitation. The order directed that, where documentary proof of age is lacking, the police may conduct age‑verification tests, but may not take coercive action unless an FIR is registered. Consequently, the petition was disposed with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether adult unmarried partners in a live‑in relationship are entitled to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to refrain from interfering in the petitioners’ cohabitation.
Whether the lack of a formal marriage deprives the petitioners of their fundamental rights.
Whether police protection can be mandated without an FIR when the petitioners are major and voluntarily cohabiting.

Subjects

live‑in relationship
right to life
Article 21
Article 226
mandamus
police protection
fundamental rights
unmarried cohabitation

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35491 of 2026

Hemlata And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Maksood Ahmad, Mohd. Afzal Ansari
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 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
WRIC No. 35491 of 2026
2

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.

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 8, 2026
S.Ali

Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…