Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by a 20-year-old live-in couple seeking police protection, the Single Judge Bench of Gajendra Singh, J., allowed the petition, holding that the petitioners were major and entitled to reside as per their will. However, the Court cautioned young couples that making such choices obviates the possibility of going for higher education, which drastically affects the chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life and reduces societal acceptance.
Background
The petitioners, a 20-year-old boy and girl, were residing together against their parents’ wishes and were apprehensive about some untoward action from the girl’s parents. Hence, they filed the present petition seeking police protection.
Analysis
The Court held that despite the petitioners being 20 years old and the boy not even being 21 years old, he was entitled to reside as per his own will, and if he so decided, his choice needed to be protected from external forces. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, (2018) 16 SCC 602, wherein the Supreme Court held that since both persons were major, even if they are not competent to enter into wedlock, they have a right to live together and even outside the wedlock.
However, the Court expressed its concern about the choices that the youngsters were making these days. The Court stated that even though the Constitution conferred certain rights, it was not necessary to enjoy and enforce them as well.
“India is not a country where the State provides any allowance to the unemployed and the uneducated ones; thus, if you are not dependent on your parents, you have to earn your own and your partner’s livelihood. This would naturally obviate the possibility of going to a school or a college. If you get into this struggle of life at an early age by choice, not only are your chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life are drastically affected, but your acceptance in society is also reduced.”
The Court further remarked that it was far more difficult for a girl who becomes pregnant at an early age, leading to further complications in her life. Thus, the Court advised discretion while opting for such choices and enforcing such rights, as it is one thing to have the rights and another to enforce them.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed the State to protect the couple. The Court also directed the Station House officer concerned to share his contact details with the petitioners so that they can reach him in case of any emergency.
[Ruchika v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 49301 of 2025, decided on 24-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Prashant Sharma
For the respondent: Government Advocate Vinod Thakur