The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that major individuals have a fundamental right to choose their life partners and reside together, irrespective of marital status, and are entitled to state protection against threats from family members. This judgment reinforces the constitutional protection of personal autonomy under Article 21 and aligns with evolving societal norms and legislative recognition of live-in relationships.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sonu Soni (petitioner no.1, aged 20) and petitioner no.2 (aged 21), are two consenting adults residing together in Indore. They are not married, and their relationship is opposed by the parents of petitioner no.1, who have allegedly threatened violence and intimidation. The petitioners fear that the parents may register false criminal cases against them or resort to physical harm to separate them. They seek immediate police protection and legal safeguards against such interference.
Key Facts
- Petitioner no.1 is 20 years old as of the date of filing (15.07.2026)
- Petitioner no.2 is 21 years old as of the date of filing (15.07.2026)
- Both petitioners are major under Indian law (above 18 years)
- They are not legally married, nor do they seek marriage at this stage
- The parents of petitioner no.1 have expressed strong disapproval and are alleged to have made threats of violence
- No FIR or formal complaint has been registered against the petitioners as of the date of the order
- The petitioners have not approached any lower court or police station prior to filing this writ petition
Procedural History
- 15.07.2026: Writ Petition No. 25646 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore
- 15.07.2026: Hearing conducted on the same day of filing
- 15.07.2026: Order passed by Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Protection from respondent no.4 (parents of petitioner no.1) and their associates
- Direction to punish respondent no.4 in accordance with law
- Assurance that no false case shall be registered against petitioner no.2
- Any other order deemed just and expedient in the interest of justice
The Parties' Positions / Positions Before This Court
Petitioners' Position: The petitioners relied on Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018) 16 SCC 602, arguing that as major individuals, they have a fundamental right to choose their life partner and live together, even outside marriage. They contended that this right is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and recognized under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. They emphasized that their relationship is consensual and non-coercive, and that state intervention is necessary to prevent familial violence.
Respondent State's Position: The State opposed the petition on two grounds: (1) petitioner no.1 is not yet 21 years old, and therefore not of marriageable age under the Special Marriage Act, and (2) granting protection to live-in relationships would promote promiscuity and undermine societal values. The State argued that no imminent threat had been established and that the petitioners should resolve the matter through family mediation.
The Genesis / Origin of the Case
The dispute arose from a cultural and generational conflict between the petitioners and the family of petitioner no.1. The petitioners, both adults, chose to cohabit in Indore after mutual consent. The parents of petitioner no.1, reportedly traditional in outlook, began exerting pressure, including verbal threats and warnings of social ostracization. Fearing escalation into physical violence or false criminal complaints, the petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking immediate protection.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether major individuals, even if not of marriageable age under personal or statutory law, have a fundamental right under Article 21 to live together in a consensual relationship, and whether the State is obligated to protect them from familial threats under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, which held that major individuals have the right to live together even outside wedlock. It was argued that the right to choose a partner and cohabit is an essential facet of personal liberty under Article 21. The counsel emphasized that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 explicitly recognizes live-in relationships as relationships "in the nature of marriage," thereby extending statutory protection to such arrangements. The petitioners’ vulnerability to familial coercion, the absence of any criminal complaint, and the lack of alternative remedies justified immediate judicial intervention.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that since petitioner no.1 is 20 years old, she has not attained the age of 21 prescribed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and therefore, her relationship lacks legal legitimacy. It further argued that judicial recognition of live-in relationships could encourage moral laxity and erode social norms. The State submitted that the petitioners had not exhausted alternative remedies, such as approaching the local police station or filing a complaint under Section 498A IPC, and that the writ petition was premature.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the constitutional dimensions of personal autonomy and the legislative recognition of live-in relationships. It noted that the Supreme Court in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala had unequivocally held that the right to live with a partner of one’s choice is intrinsic to personal liberty under Article 21, irrespective of marital status. The Court observed:
"We need not go into this aspect in detail. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that both Appellant 1 and Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that 'live-in relationship' is now recognized by the legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."
The Court rejected the State’s argument that petitioner no.1’s age of 20 rendered her relationship illegitimate. It clarified that the marriageable age under statutory law is irrelevant to the constitutional right to cohabit. The Court emphasized that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not require marriage for protection - it extends to relationships where two adults live together as a couple, regardless of formal union.
The Court further held that the State’s duty to protect citizens from threats of violence, including from family members, is non-negotiable under Article 21 and Article 14. The absence of a prior FIR or complaint does not negate the imminent threat, particularly where the petitioners are minors in the eyes of societal norms but legally adults. The Court dismissed the notion that protecting such relationships promotes promiscuity, stating that such moral judgments have no place in constitutional jurisprudence.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Indore Police to provide immediate protection to the petitioners against threats from the parents of petitioner no.1. The SHO of Police Station Bhanwarkua, Indore, was directed to share his mobile number with the petitioners for emergency contact. A copy of the order was to be forwarded to the Advocate General for communication to the ACP, Zone-4, Indore. The Court emphasized that the petitioners’ right to live together must be safeguarded without delay, and compliance was to be ensured forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Constitutional Right to Cohabitation Is Absolute for Majors
- Practitioners must now argue that any threat to cohabiting adults, regardless of marital status or age below statutory marriageable limits, constitutes a violation of Article 21
- Police cannot refuse protection on grounds of moral disapproval or age below 21
- Applications under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be filed even without marriage, provided a shared household exists
State Duty to Protect Is Proactive, Not Reactive
- Courts will now treat petitions seeking protection for live-in couples as urgent matters under Article 226
- The absence of an FIR or prior complaint does not bar judicial intervention where credible fear of violence is demonstrated
- Police stations must be trained to recognize live-in relationships as protected under the DV Act, 2005
Judicial Rejection of Moralistic Arguments
- Arguments that live-in relationships promote "promiscuity" or undermine "social values" are constitutionally untenable
- Courts will not permit societal prejudice to override individual autonomy
- Future petitions may cite this judgment to challenge familial coercion in interfaith, inter-caste, or same-sex cohabitation cases
