In a significant ruling on personal liberty, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed the right of two majors to live together, even if they are below the marriageable age, and directed the police to provide protection against potential threats from their families. The judgment reinforces the principle that the choice of cohabitation by consenting adults is protected under the Constitution, irrespective of societal norms or parental objections.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Kalpna (aged 19) and her partner (aged 22), approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking police protection. They alleged that they were residing together against the wishes of Kalpna’s parents and apprehended potential harm or coercive action from them. The petitioners sought protection to safeguard their right to live together as consenting adults.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No. 1 (Kalpna) is a 19-year-old woman, below the marriageable age of 21 years as prescribed under Indian law
- Petitioner No. 2 is her partner, aged 22
- Both petitioners are majors under the Indian Majority Act, 1875
- The petitioners are residing together against the wishes of Kalpna’s parents
- They apprehend potential coercive or violent action from Kalpna’s parents
Procedural History
- 12.06.2026: The present writ petition (WP No. 17057 of 2026) was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench
- The petition sought police protection and any other appropriate relief
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought the following reliefs:
- Direction to the respondents to provide appropriate police protection
- Any other order deemed fit by the Court to safeguard their right to live together
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether two majors, one of whom is below the marriageable age, have the right to live together and seek police protection against potential coercive action by their families, even if their relationship does not conform to societal or legal norms of marriage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The counsel for the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala ((2018) 16 SCC 602). The petitioners contended that:
- Both petitioners are majors and thus entitled to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- Even if they are not competent to enter into wedlock due to age, they have the right to live together outside wedlock
- The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 recognizes live-in relationships, further supporting their claim
- The State has a duty to protect their choice of cohabitation from external interference, including familial coercion
For the Respondent/State
The learned Government Advocate opposed the petition on the following grounds:
- Petitioner No. 1 is only 19 years old and has not completed the marriageable age of 21 years
- Granting such protection would not be in the larger interest of society and could promote promiscuity
- The State argued that societal norms and legal age requirements for marriage should not be disregarded
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the rival submissions and the precedent cited by the petitioners. It observed that the Supreme Court in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala had categorically held that two majors have the right to live together, even outside wedlock, irrespective of their competence to marry. The Court quoted paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court’s judgment:
"10. 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 emphasized that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right of consenting adults to choose their living arrangements, free from external interference. It noted that while societal norms and legal age requirements for marriage are important, they cannot override the fundamental right of majors to live together. The Court also acknowledged the legislative recognition of live-in relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which further strengthens the legal basis for protecting such relationships.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that granting protection would promote promiscuity, holding that the right to personal liberty cannot be curtailed on moral or societal grounds when the individuals involved are majors and acting of their own free will.
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
- The respondents are directed to provide appropriate police protection to the petitioners to safeguard their right to live together
- The counsel for the petitioners is directed to apprise the petitioners about the concerns expressed by the Court regarding their decision
- A copy of the order is to be supplied to the Advocate General’s office for communication to the Superintendent of Police, District Mandsaur, for prompt compliance
- The Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned Police Station is directed to share his/her mobile number with the petitioners to enable them to reach out in case of any emergency
The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection of Personal Liberty Overrides Societal Norms
This judgment reinforces the principle that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 is paramount and cannot be restricted merely on the grounds of societal disapproval or non-conformity with legal age requirements for marriage. Practitioners should note:
- Courts are likely to uphold the right of majors to live together, even if one or both parties are below the marriageable age
- Police protection can be sought and granted to safeguard such relationships from familial or societal coercion
- The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides an additional legal basis for protecting live-in relationships
Limits of State Intervention in Personal Choices
- The State cannot justify interference in the personal choices of majors on moral or societal grounds alone
- Arguments based on promoting promiscuity or societal interest are unlikely to succeed if the individuals involved are majors exercising their free will
- Practitioners should rely on constitutional principles rather than societal norms when advocating for personal liberty
Practical Implications for Legal Practice
- Drafting petitions: When seeking police protection for live-in couples, emphasize Article 21 and cite Nandakumar v. State of Kerala as precedent
- Evidence: While no formal proof of relationship is required, establishing that both parties are majors and acting of their own free will strengthens the case
- Compliance: Ensure that orders for police protection include practical measures, such as providing emergency contact details of the concerned SHO, to facilitate prompt action
