Introduction:

In the case of Priya Suman & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided by the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand delivered a crucial ruling reaffirming the constitutional protection guaranteed to two consenting adults who choose to enter a live-in relationship, particularly when their decision invites opposition, hostility, or threats from their family members. The petitioners—a woman aged 18 and a man aged 19—approached the Court seeking protection of their life and personal liberty after their families strongly objected to their decision to live together until they could legally marry upon the man attaining the age of 21. They contended that they had submitted a representation to the Nodal Officer seeking immediate protection, but no action had been taken, thereby compelling them to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners asserted that they were major individuals fully competent to make decisions concerning their personal relationships and living arrangements. They argued that the opposition of the woman’s family had escalated to threats of violence, coercion, and interference with their autonomy. They emphasized that their desire to live together was purely consensual, lawful, and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, dignity, and personal autonomy. They further clarified that they intended to marry once the man reached 21 years of age, but until then, they wished to cohabit peacefully without fear. The petitioners’ counsel pointed out that the Nodal Officer had ignored their representation, violating their legal right to seek preventive protection from threats. They relied upon Supreme Court precedents such as Lata Singh v. State of UP, where the apex court held that adults are free to choose their partners and live together without facing persecution, and Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court recognized that even when a male partner is below the statutory marriageable age, the couple’s right to live together cannot be questioned. The petitioners argued that despite these clear legal principles, the authorities failed to act, exposing them to grave danger.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The respondents objected to the plea by contending that the male petitioner had not yet attained the legally mandated marriageable age of 21, and thus the couple should not be allowed to reside together. They emphasized societal norms and argued that the live-in arrangement was inappropriate given the age constraints. The respondents suggested that such a relationship could disrupt social harmony and therefore should not be facilitated by granting protective orders. They further argued that the petitioners should wait until the male partner attains legal marriageable age, implying that granting protection would indirectly validate a relationship allegedly contrary to personal law norms. However, they did not dispute the petitioners’ age majority nor provide any lawful basis to suggest that their cohabitation constituted an offence.

Court’s Judgment:

The Rajasthan High Court rejected the respondents’ objections and made it unequivocally clear that the Court’s duty is to safeguard constitutional rights—not enforce societal morality or familial preferences. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand reiterated that both petitioners were adults, and as per settled law, two consenting adults are fully entitled to live together, whether or not they are married. The Court strongly relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings. In Lata Singh v. State of UP, the Supreme Court declared that adults choosing to live together cannot be treated as offenders, and their life and liberty must be protected against extrajudicial threats. The High Court observed that the instant case was identical in spirit—the only hostility came from family members who disapproved of the relationship, which could not legally prevent two adults from exercising their autonomy. Further, the Court referred to Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala, where the Supreme Court clarified that even when a man is below 21, a couple’s relationship is not void but voidable, and the law does not prohibit two adults from living together. Justice Dhand emphasized that live-in relationships have been recognized by Indian jurisprudence and even acknowledged in statutory provisions such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which treats such relationships as “relationships in the nature of marriage.” Thus, the respondents’ assertion that the couple could not cohabit merely because the man was under 21 had no legal basis. The Court further highlighted that the primary question before it was not the legality of marriage but the immediate need to protect the petitioners’ fundamental rights under Article 21. Addressing the failure of the authorities to respond to the petitioners’ representation, the Court invoked Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, which expressly obligates the police to safeguard the life, liberty, and property of all citizens. The Court held that the Nodal Officer was legally bound to examine the petitioners’ fears, assess the threat perception, and provide appropriate security measures without unnecessary delay. The High Court declared that there was “no valid reason” to take a view contrary to the established constitutional position and Supreme Court precedents. It observed that when two legal adults voluntarily decide to live together, the State cannot interfere unless the arrangement violates a specific law—which it did not in this case. As a result, the Court directed the Nodal Officer to forthwith decide the petitioners’ representation in accordance with law and, after assessing the threat, ensure that appropriate protection was given to them if required. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, but with firm directions binding on the authorities to prevent any harm, harassment, or interference with the couple’s liberty. This ruling reinforces that personal autonomy, choice of partner, and the right to cohabit fall within the realm of constitutionally protected freedoms, regardless of societal disapproval or familial resistance.