Allahabad High Court
ANJALI 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 their life and liberty under Article 21, and the State may not interfere absent any criminal offence.
Summary
The petitioners, two adult unmarried individuals living 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 noted that the facts were analogous to a prior decision (Akanksha v. State of U.P.) and reiterated that adult citizens have a fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 irrespective of marital status. It held that no interference is permissible unless the petitioners commit an offence, and directed that police may provide protection upon verification of their majority and voluntary cohabitation. The Court also prescribed procedures for age verification where documentary proof is lacking. Accordingly, the petition was disposed with directions for police protection. The order was pronounced on 23 September 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the State may lawfully interfere in the peaceful cohabitation of adult, unmarried partners.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under Article 21 and a writ of mandamus in the absence of any alleged offence.
- Whether police officers can take coercive action against the petitioners without an FIR.
Subjects
- live‑in relationship
- right to life
- Article 21
- Article 226
- writ of mandamus
- police protection
- adult consent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38251 of 2026
Anjali And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atul Kumar Singh, Jitendra Kumar
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
WRIC No. 38251 of 2026
2
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.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 23, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…