The Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently expressed concern over the choices being made by youngsters nowadays, even though it granted police protection to a young live-in couple, both aged 19 years.

The Court was hearing a case where a teenage couple sought protection against possible threats from their parents due to their decision to live together against their wishes. It was argued by the respondents in this case that since the boy is not of marriageable age, granting the couple police protection will promote promiscuousness in society.

The Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar, observed, "Although there is much to ponder over this subject but it must be remembered that even though certain rights have been conferred by the Constitution it is not necessary to enjoy, and enforce them as well".

The Bench remarked on the implications of such choices, highlighting the challenges young individuals face when entering relationships at an early age. The Court also cautioned against the potential consequences of prioritizing relationships over education and career prospects. Acknowledging the additional difficulties faced by young girls, especially in cases of early pregnancies, the Court advised discretion in making choices and enforcing rights.

The Bench said, "India is not a country where the State provides any allowance to the unemployed and the uneducated ones, thus, if you are not dependent on your parents, you have to earn your own and your partner’s livelihood and this would naturally obviate possibility of going to a school or a college, and if you get into this struggle of life at an early age by choice, not only your chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life are drastically affected but your acceptance in the society is also reduced, and it is far more difficult for a girl who can also become pregnant at an early age, leading to further complications in her life. Thus, discretion is advised while opting for such choices and enforcing such rights, as it is one thing to have the rights and another to enforce them."

Despite opposition from the State, which raised concerns about promoting promiscuity in society, the Court allowed the couple's Petition based on the Supreme Court's observations in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, reported as (2018) 16 SCC 602, on the rights of major couples to live together.

While allowing the Writ Petition seeking protection, the Court directed the Respondent authority to provide protection to them as required. "Counsel for the petitioner is also directed to apprise the Petitioners about the concerns expressed by this Court," the Court added.

It further directed, "The concerned SHO, Police Station Sanawad, District Khargone/respondent no.3 is also directed to share his/her mobile number with the petitioners so that they can reach him/her at any time, in case of any emergency."

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed.

Cause Title: X v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [WRIT PETITION No. 3857 of 2024]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate Apoorv Joshi

Respondent: Advocate Amay Bajaj

Click here to read/Download the Order




Justice Subodh AbhyankarMadhya Pradesh High Court

Sukriti Mishra