Rajasthan High Court said that two consenting adults have the right to live in a relationship even without attaining the legal marriageable age. The Court stressed that Article 21 protects such personal choices and ensures freedom and safety.
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that two consenting adults have the right to engage in a live-in relationship, even if they have not reached the legal marriage age.
In India, the legal age for marriage is 18 for women and 21 for men, and individuals are considered adults at 18.
Justice Anoop Dhand issued the judgment on Monday while addressing a protection petition filed by an 18-year-old woman and a 19-year-old man from Kota.
The court uploaded a copy of the order on Thursday. The couple sought police protection, claiming they entered a live-in arrangement by mutual agreement.
The couple’s age does not negate their rights, and they executed a live-in agreement on October 27, 2025.
However, the woman’s family opposed their relationship, allegedly issuing threats against them. They informed the court that despite submitting a written complaint to the police in Kota, no action was taken.
Vivek Choudhary, the public prosecutor representing the state, argued that since the young man had not yet turned 21, he was not legally able to marry and therefore should not be permitted to enter into a live-in partnership.
The High Court dismissed this argument, highlighting that the “right to life and personal liberty” is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Any threat to this right constitutes a constitutional violation.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India is one of the most important fundamental rights. It states:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Article 21 protects two basic rights of every person living in India:
- Right to Personal Liberty: Your freedom cannot be taken away without following a proper legal procedure.
- Right to Life: You cannot be deprived of your life unless there is a fair, just, and reasonable legal process.
Justice Dhand stressed that it is the state’s constitutional duty to safeguard the life and liberty of every citizen.
Also Read: “Imported Philosophy & Stigma In Indian Culture”: HC on Live-in Relationships
The court stated,
“Only because the petitioners are not marriageable by law, they cannot be deprived of their fundamental rights,”
The court also clarified that live-in relationships are neither illegal nor offenses under Indian law, instructing the Superintendents of Police for Bhilwara and Jodhpur (Rural) to investigate the claims made in the petition, especially concerning the perceived threats, and to provide protection to the couple if necessary.
Legal Status of Live-In Relationships in India
Live-in relationships are not illegal in India, but they do not hold the same legal status as marriage.
The Supreme Court has recognized live-in relationships as “relationships in the nature of marriage” under specific conditions, offering legal protection to women in such arrangements. The journey of recognition of live in relationships have been as follows:
Badri Prasad vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation (August 1, 1978)
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of live-in relationships for the first time, ruling that if a couple cohabits for a long period, their relationship is presumed to be a marriage unless proven otherwise.
S. Khushboo vs. Kanniammal & Anr. (April 28, 2010)
The Court held that live-in relationships and pre-marital sex are not illegal in India. It also reaffirmed that cohabitation falls under the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Dhannulal & Others vs. Ganeshram & Another (April 8, 2015)
The Court ruled that a woman in a long-term live-in relationship is entitled to inherit her deceased partner’s property. It rejected family objections, emphasizing that such relationships are presumed to be marriages.
Vidyadhari & Ors. vs. Sukhrana Bai & Ors. (January 22, 2008)
The Supreme Court granted inheritance rights to a woman in a live-in relationship, affirming that she is entitled to her partner’s property upon his death.
D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal (October 21, 2010)
The Court established criteria for defining a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the Domestic Violence Act. It ruled that couples must present themselves as spouses, be legally eligible to marry, and cohabit voluntarily for a significant period.
Bharatha Matha & Anr. vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan & Ors. (May 17, 2010)
The Court recognized the inheritance rights of children born out of live-in relationships, allowing them to claim a share in their parents’ self-acquired property, though not in ancestral property.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court: “Live-In Relationship Goes Against Women’s Interest”
Indra Sarma vs. V. K. V. Sarma (November 26, 2013)
The Court clarified that women in live-in relationships are entitled to legal protection under the Domestic Violence Act, ensuring their right to maintenance and safeguarding them from abuse.
Lalita Toppo vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (October 30, 2018)
In this case, the Court reaffirmed that women in live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, recognizing their financial and legal rights.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
