Allahabad High Court
AMRITA SONKAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 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 person, including family, may obstruct the petitioners’ choice of partner when they are of majority and have not committed any offence. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioners may approach the Commissioner of Police or the concerned police officer with a certified copy of the order for immediate protection, subject to verification of age if necessary. The order emphasized that police action against the petitioners is permissible only if an FIR is lodged for an offence. The petition was therefore disposed of with directions for police protection.
Issues considered
- Whether the State can be compelled to provide police protection to adult unmarried individuals in a live‑in relationship facing familial 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 directing police authorities to safeguard such individuals.
Subjects
- live‑in relationship
- right to life
- Article 21
- police protection
- writ of mandamus
- constitutional rights
- family harassment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38201 of 2026
Amrita Sonkar And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Yadav, Yashasvi Yadav
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 as well as Shri Pramod Kumar Sahu, learned
counsel for the private respondent 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
WRIC No. 38201 of 2026
2
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.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 23, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…