Mere Fact That They Are Not Of Marriageable Age Would Not Deprive Them Of Their Fundamental Rights: Rajasthan HC Orders Police Protection To Couple

The Court said that mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their fundamental right.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to protect the life and liberty of petitioners as they apprehend threats at the hands of private respondents.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, “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. Mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India.”

Advocate Rishabh Handa appeared for the Appellant and PP Sonu Manawat appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The petitioners who are minors claimed that they are in love and have been living together for a few days. They intend to marry once the second petitioner reaches marriageable age, but the first petitioner’s parents oppose the relationship. Since they entered into a live-in relationship, private respondents have allegedly threatened them with harm, and the petitioners fear their parents may track them down and kill them. They said that they approached the police with documents seeking protection for their life and liberty but no action has been taken. Hence, the Petitioners filed the present petition.

The Court said that the issue in hand, however, is not the marriage of the petitioners, but the deprivation of the fundamental right of seeking protection of life and liberty.

“I have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.”, the Court observed.

The Court referred a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRWP No. 4725 of 2021 titled “Seema Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others” and quoted, “The concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence. Even under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman who is in a 'domestic relationship' has been provided protection, maintenance etc. It is interesting to note that the word 'wife' has not been used under the said Act. Thus, the female live-in- partners and the children of live-in couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Parliament.”

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition.