Justice Anoop Dhand delivered the order, stating unequivocally that two consenting adults can enter a live-in relationship even if they have not yet attained the legal marriageable age.
The State’s argument, put forth by Public Prosecutor Vivek Choudhary, was that because the man was only $19$, allowing the partnership would indirectly violate existing marriage laws.
Justice Dhand firmly rejected this:
-
Article 21 Protection: The court emphasized that live-in relationships are protected under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This constitutional right, the judge noted, “stands on a much higher pedestal.“
-
Adulthood vs. Marriage Age: At 18, both individuals are recognized as adults under the law and are therefore capable of making their own choices regarding companionship.
-
Constitutional Duty: Denying protection to consenting adults only because one partner has not reached the marriageable age of 21Â for men would be a violation of their fundamental rights. The state’s duty is to “safeguard the life and liberty of every citizen.”
-
Legality: Live-in relationships, the court reiterated, are neither illegal nor a criminal offense under Indian law.
The case was high-stakes; the couple had filed a plea for protection because the woman’s family was strongly opposing their decision, having allegedly threatened them with physical harm. They had even formalized their intent by executing a live-in agreement on October 27, 2025.
Ultimately, the High Court directed the Superintendents of Police in Bhilwara and Jodhpur (Rural) to verify the couple’s claims regarding threats and provide them with police protection if required.
This ruling solidifies the legal distinction between the right to cohabit (protected under Article 21 for all adults) and the right to formal marriage (which has a specific age requirement). It’s another win for individual autonomy in the country’s legal landscape.
