Allahabad High Court
SMT PRIYA KAUR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
Because petitioner No.2 is a minor and thus not qualified to enter into a live-in relationship, protection cannot be granted under Article 226.
Summary
The petitioners, an unmarried couple in a live-in relationship, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the police to protect them from harassment by family members. The second petitioner is a minor, and the respondents argued that protection cannot be granted. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Asha Devi v. State of U.P., which laid down criteria for recognizing a "relationship in the nature of marriage" and held that a minor cannot qualify for such a relationship. Applying those principles, the Court found that the minor petitioner is not eligible to enter a live-in relationship and therefore the petition for protection cannot be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether protection can be granted to petitioners in a live-in relationship under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether a live-in relationship involving a minor qualifies as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" for the purpose of protection.
- Whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing police protection in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. 226
- Indian Penal Code — s. 494, 495
Subjects
- live-in relationship
- minor
- Article 226
- mandamus
- protection order
- common law marriage
- Indian Penal Code 494
- Indian Penal Code 495
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38693 of 2026
Smt Priya Kaur And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lal Bahadur
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 though both the
petitioners are of different faiths. 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. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel opposes the prayer made in
the writ petition and submits that though the petitioner No. 1 is major, but
the petitioner No. 2 is less than 18 years, thus, no protection can be granted.
5. Learned standing counsel places reliance upon a division Bench judgment
of this Court in the case of Asha Devi and another vs. State of U.P. and
three others (Writ C No.18743 of 2020) decided on 01.12.2020, in which
following questions were framed as below:
"(i) xxxxx
(ii) Whether protection to petitioners as husband and wife or
as live-in-relationship can be granted in exercise of powers
conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
when their living together may constitute offences under
Sections 494/495 I.P.C."
6. Para 21 of the aforesaid judgment passed in Asha Devi (supra) reads as
under:-
"21. The discussion and findings as recorded in foregoing
paragraphs are briefly summarized as under:-
WRIC No. 38693 of 2026
2
(i) A "relationship in the nature of marriage" is akin to a
common law marriage. Common law marriages require
that although not being formally married :-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to
society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to
enter into a legal marriage, including
being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and
held themselves out to the world as being
akin to spouses for a significant period of
time.
(ii) xxxx
(iii) Following relationship have not being recognized
or approved as live-in-relationship or relationship in the
nature of marriage. This list is not exhaustive but
merely illustrative :-
(a) xxxx
(b) xxxx
(c) xxxx
(d) If both the persons are otherwise not
qualified to enter into a legal marriage
including being unmarried.
(iv) xxxx
(v) xxx
7. In view of the admitted fact that petitioner No. 2 is minor and thus he is
not qualified to enter into live in relationship, therefore, protection cannot be
granted by this Court in exercise of power under Section 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. This writ petition, having no force, is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
September 24, 2026
Mustaqeem.
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…