Rajasthan HC Orders Police To Protect Man & Woman Living Together Outside Their Marriages

The Court was addressing a petition filed by a woman with four children and a man with one child. The couple, who have been living together for a few days, expressed concern for their safety due to threats from their relatives.

A bench of Justice Arun Monga said, “As an upshot, without commenting upon the legality of the relationship between the petitioners or expressing any opinion on the merits of their apprehensions, petition is disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Churu and Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu to verify/get verified, as they may like, the contents of the petition, particularly the threat perception of the petitioners, and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law and, if deemed fit, provide necessary protection qua their life and liberty.”

Advocate Mudit Vaishnav appeared for the Petitioners and Advocate Vikram Rajpurohit appeared for the Respondents.

The Court’s ruling drew from the earlier case of Kanti and Another v. State of Haryana & Ors (2023). In this case, as a puisne judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, he had addressed similar circumstances.

The critical issue was not the legal status of the couple's relationship but whether they were entitled to protection under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Despite the relationship being deemed prima facie adulterous, the Court emphasized that in a nation governed by the Rule of Law, the fundamental right to life under Article 21 must be upheld regardless of the relationship's legitimacy.

The Court reproduced the paras of the above-mentioned judgment, “8. The key issue at hand is not the legality of the petitioners' relationship, qua which they may be liable for civil as well as criminal consequences in accordance with law, but whether they are entitled to protection of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Must their right to live be upheld, irrespective of their self-proclaimed live in relationship, which on the face of it appears to be adulterous? Pertinently, the couple herein fears for their safety not from society or State, but from the family members of petitioner no. 1. The answer to the aforesaid questions, in the words of Lord J. Denning, simply is, “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”. In a nation governed by the Rule of Law, as a citizen you must not and cannot take the law unto your own hands.”

Cause Title: Maya & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2024:RJ-JD:34890]