High Court Rules: Live-In Is Protected, Marriage Age Doesn’t Stop It
The case itself was raw: an 18-year-old woman and a 19-year-old man from Kota filed a plea for protection. They had already executed a live-in agreement, a paper trail to show their free will. The problem started immediately. The woman’s family opposed the relationship. And then the threats to kill them followed.
The State’s Argument: The public prosecutor tried to stop it. The argument? The man hadn’t hit the legal marriage age of 21 years; therefore, the court should not permit the arrangement.
The Court’s Dismissal: Justice Anoop Dhand shot that down fast. The judge ruled that the right to life and personal liberty—the core guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution—cannot be denied just because the petitioners are not of marriageable age. The rights are tied to their status as consenting adults who are not minors, not to whether they can get married in a temple or register office.
The Principle: The judge made it clear: the state has a constitutional obligation to safeguard the life and liberty of every single individual. Live-in relationships? They are not criminalized or prohibited under Indian law.
The consequence was immediate. The court directed the Superintendents of Police in Bhilwara and Jodhpur (Rural) to verify the facts, assess the threats, and ensure necessary police protection for the couple. The law is drawing a line here. It’s saying family objection and incomplete marriage age cannot override a fundamental constitutional right. The matter is ongoing, but the constitutional ground has been held firm.
Read More: New plan for millions of Jio users, SIM will remain active for 365 days
