The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends to adults in live-in relationships facing threats from family members, regardless of the legal validity of their union. The Court directed state authorities to assess threat perception and provide protection where warranted, reinforcing that societal disapproval cannot override constitutional guarantees.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Radha Devi and Shankar Patel, both aged approximately 26 years, allege that they have entered into a live-in relationship by mutual consent, formalized by a written agreement dated 27.04.2026. They claim to be residing together voluntarily and lawfully. The private respondents - Manohar Singh and Nenu Devi, who are the parents of Radha Devi - oppose this relationship and have allegedly subjected the petitioners to threats, intimidation, and harassment, creating a well-founded apprehension of harm to their life and personal liberty.
Key Facts
- Radha Devi is the daughter of Manohar Singh and Nenu Devi, residents of Badakheda, Rajsamand
- Shankar Patel is a resident of Khadao Ki Dhani, Narnadi, Jodhpur
- The petitioners executed a written agreement for live-in relationship on 27.04.2026, uploaded to the court portal on 05.05.2026
- The petitioners assert they are adults and have attained majority
- They claim to have been subjected to verbal threats, physical intimidation, and confinement attempts by the private respondents
- No FIR or criminal complaint has been registered as of the date of the petition
- The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking immediate protective measures
Procedural History
- 27.04.2026: Petitioners execute live-in relationship agreement
- 05.05.2026: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2018/2026 filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
- 05.05.2026: Hearing conducted by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Rekha Borana
- 05.05.2026: Judgment delivered on the same day of hearing
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought immediate protective orders from the state authorities, including police protection, to prevent harm from the private respondents, and directions to ensure their safety while residing together.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution entitles adults in a consensual live-in relationship to seek protective measures from the state when facing threats from family members, even if the legitimacy of the relationship has not been judicially established.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Sharwan Choudhary argued that the petitioners, as adult individuals, have an absolute right to choose their life partner and live together without coercion. He relied on Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. to assert that parental opposition or societal disapproval cannot override the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. He emphasized that the petitioners have already taken the precautionary step of documenting their relationship, and the threat is imminent and credible.
For the Respondent
Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Public Prosecutor, did not contest the petitioners’ right to life and liberty but submitted that the matter required factual assessment by the police. He argued that the Court should not validate the relationship or the document but should direct the police to evaluate the threat perception and act within their statutory duties under CrPC and the State Police Manual.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Article 21 and its expansive interpretation in cases involving personal autonomy and protection from non-state actors. It relied on its own earlier decision in Gulshan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, which held that apprehension of threat to life or liberty, if asserted, must be examined by the competent authority.
"No person can be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law and apprehension relating to life and personal liberty, if asserted, deserves to be examined by the competent Authority."
The Court clarified that its role was not to adjudicate the validity of the live-in relationship or the authenticity of the agreement. It emphasized that the police, as the primary custodians of public order and personal safety, are duty-bound to assess threats and take preventive action. The Court noted that the petitioners had not sought to restrain the private respondents or initiate criminal proceedings, but only requested protective measures.
The Court further held that the state’s obligation under Article 21 is proactive - not merely reactive. Where a credible apprehension of harm is raised by adult individuals, the police must conduct a fair, non-discriminatory assessment, afford hearing to all parties, and calibrate the response based on objective threat perception.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand, within ten days from the date of judgment to submit a written representation detailing the persons from whom they apprehend threat. The Superintendent of Police shall afford a hearing to the petitioners and, if necessary, to the private respondents, examine the grievance, assess the threat perception, and pass appropriate orders to ensure their safety. The Superintendent may coordinate with the Station House Officer, Devgarh, for effective implementation. The stay petition and all pending applications are disposed of. The Court explicitly clarified that no finding has been made on the validity of the relationship or the agreement, and all civil or criminal proceedings remain unaffected.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Is a Right, Not a Privilege
- Practitioners can now cite this judgment to seek immediate protective orders under Article 226 for adults in live-in relationships facing familial threats, even without a prior FIR
- The burden is on the police to assess threat, not on the petitioners to prove criminal intent or establish legal validity of the relationship
- Courts will not require proof of prior violence - apprehension alone, if credible, triggers state obligation
Police Must Act Proactively, Not Passively
- The judgment establishes that police cannot defer action pending criminal complaints or court orders
- Threat assessment must be conducted within a reasonable timeframe, with documented reasoning
- Failure to act may expose authorities to liability under Article 21 for non-feasance
- Coordination between SP and SHO is now a mandatory procedural step
No Judicial Endorsement Required for Protection
- Courts will not validate or invalidate relationships before granting protection
- The existence of a written agreement is helpful but not essential
- Protection orders are independent of civil remedies like injunctions or criminal proceedings under IPC Sections 498A or 506
- This creates a parallel, preventive legal pathway for vulnerable adults seeking safety from family coercion
