An 18-year-old woman and a 19-year-old man from Kota, Rajasthan, have filed a petition seeking protection from family threats after their decision to live together in a relationship met with fierce opposition.
The Rajasthan High Court directed the police to verify the threats of violence and ensure the safety of the couple, dismissing the public prosecutor’s objection that the man was under the legal marriageable age of 21.
Upholding their right to life and personal liberty, the court emphasised that such rights cannot be denied simply because the couple is not legally eligible for marriage under prevailing laws.
Court Orders Protection Amid Threats and Legal Challenge
The live-in relationship of the young couple began on October 27, 2025, but soon after, the woman’s family expressed vehement dissent and allegedly issued death threats against both individuals.
The couple approached the Kunhadi police station twice in November, on the 13th and 17th, reporting these threats and seeking protection, but no effective action was taken. Faced with this lack of police response, the couple filed a petition in the Rajasthan High Court, seeking immediate intervention and security.
During the December 1 hearing, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasised the need for police to take the threats seriously, ordering prompt verification and protection measures to safeguard the couple’s lives.
The court strongly reiterated that the “right to life and personal liberty” enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution transcends the mere attainment of a legal marriageable age, condemning any attempt to curb this right on such grounds.
Background and Legal Context on Personal Freedom
The public prosecutor for the case, Vivek Choudhary, raised an objection based on the man’s age, pointing out that under the Hindu Marriage Act, the minimum legal age for a man to marry is 21, thereby implying that the couple’s live-in relationship might be unlawful or lacking legal validity.
However, the court dismissed this argument, clarifying that the legal marriage age pertains strictly to formal marriage and does not restrict the rights of adults over 18 to live together consensually.
The court’s ruling aligns with several Supreme Court precedents that have recognised live-in relationships as protected personal choices and an extension of fundamental rights, even if such couples are not yet eligible for marriage.
Counsellor Satyam Khandelwal, representing the petitioners, cited various judicial decisions that uphold adults’ liberty to form relationships without paternalistic interference, stressing that under the law, the right to life includes autonomy and dignity in personal matters.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This landmark decision is crucial as it establishes a protective legal framework for young couples facing social and familial backlash, especially in conservative settings. It calls attention to the often harsh reality where familial honour and traditional expectations clash with individual rights, frequently leading to intimidation or violence. The High Court’s proactive stance sends a powerful message that personal liberty must be respected and that law enforcement agencies must act decisively against threats to such liberty.
The Logical Indian views this development as a reaffirmation of constitutional values prioritising peace, empathy, and coexistence. It encourages public discourse centred around supporting individuals’ choices while promoting dialogue within families to bridge generational and ideological divides. Such cases underscore the need for society to evolve in its understanding of relationships and respect for consent, thereby strengthening social harmony.
