In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that two consenting adults are entitled to be in a live-in relationship even if they have not yet reached the legal age for marriage. The ruling underscores that constitutional rights cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of not attaining marriageable age.
Justice Anoop Dhand delivered the judgment on Monday while hearing a plea for protection filed by an 18-year-old woman and a 19-year-old man from Kota. The court observed that the state has a constitutional obligation to safeguard the life and liberty of every individual under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Case: Two Young Adults Seeking Protection
The petitioners, residents of Kota, informed the court that they were living together out of free will and had executed a live-in agreement on October 27, 2025. However, the woman’s family opposed the relationship and allegedly threatened to kill the couple. Despite submitting complaints to the Kota police on November 13 and November 17, the petitioners alleged that no protective action was taken by the authorities.
Desperate for their safety, the couple approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking intervention and protection from the threat posed by the woman’s family members.
State’s Arguments Rejected
The Public Prosecutor Vivek Choudhary opposed the petition, arguing that since the man had not attained 21 years—the minimum legal age for marriage for men in India—he should not be permitted to be in a live-in arrangement. The prosecutor contended that allowing the relationship would violate established legal norms regarding marriageable age.
However, Justice Dhand firmly rejected this argument, making important legal observations about the nature of live-in relationships and constitutional protections.
Key Observations: Constitutional Rights Cannot Be Curtailed
Justice Dhand stated that “the right to life and personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and any threat to these rights amounts to a violation.” The court further clarified that merely because one petitioner has not attained the legal marriageable age, the couple cannot be denied enforcement of their fundamental rights.
The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nandakumar, which clarified that a marriage where the male is under 21 is “voidable” under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, not void. Importantly, the judgment established that adults have the right to live together even outside of wedlock.
The court also emphasized that live-in relationships are neither prohibited nor criminalized under Indian law. Therefore, two consenting adults can voluntarily live together of their own free will without legal impediment.
Court’s Direction: Police Duty to Provide Protection
Highlighting the constitutional and statutory obligations of law enforcement, Justice Dhand noted that under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, every police officer is duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of citizens.
The court directed the superintendents of police of Bhilwara and Jodhpur (rural) to:
- Verify the facts stated in the petition
- Assess the threat perception faced by the couple
- Ensure necessary protection to the couple if required
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling represents an important development in Indian jurisprudence regarding personal liberty and the constitutional protection of adults’ rights. By distinguishing between the legal age for marriage and the right to cohabitation, the court has expanded the scope of constitutional protection under Article 21.
The judgment sends a clear message that consensual relationships between adults cannot be prevented or denied protection merely because the individuals have not yet reached the marriageable age threshold. Simultaneously, it reinforces the state’s obligation to protect vulnerable individuals from threats and violence, regardless of family opposition.
Broader Legal Context
The decision aligns with a growing body of judicial precedent across Indian high courts recognizing the rights of adult couples to enter into live-in relationships. Previous judgments from courts in Punjab and Haryana, and other high courts, have similarly upheld the protection of couples in consensual relationships from threats and violence.
This ruling further strengthens the legal position that personal autonomy and the right to life are fundamental constitutional guarantees that cannot be subordinated to traditional family expectations or legal age restrictions related to marriage.
Implications for Young Adults
The judgment provides crucial reassurance to young adults who may wish to cohabitate before reaching the legal marriageable age. It establishes that such arrangements are legally permissible and that the state apparatus—particularly law enforcement—has an affirmative duty to protect such couples from familial harassment, threats, or violence.
For couples facing family opposition or threats, the ruling offers a pathway to seek court intervention and police protection without fear of legal consequences against themselves.
The case reinforces India’s constitutional commitment to protecting individual liberty and dignity while ensuring that fundamental rights are not compromised by age-related legal restrictions on marriage.
