Delhi High Court: In a writ petition seeking police protection by two consenting adults in a live-in relationship, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., held that the status of a relationship whether marital or a live-in arrangement is not a germane consideration while adjudicating a plea for protection under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Background
It was the case of the petitioners that both of them are consenting adults who, despite being married to different individuals and having children from their respective marriages, have entered into a live-in relationship. Petitioner 1 alleges that she had been subjected to continuous humiliation and torture by her husband since 2016, on account of which she voluntarily started residing with Petitioner 2 at Hyderabad from 25 February 2026. However, it is further alleged that the family members and husband of Petitioner 1, with the assistance of local police officials, have been persistently intimidating and threatening the petitioners with grave physical harm, thereby compelling them to relocate to Delhi. It is also stated that despite making representations to the authorities, no effective action was taken.
Thus, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was preferred by the petitioner’s seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or appropriate directions for grant of police protection against the alleged threat to their life and limb at the hands of the family members and husband of Petitioner 1.
Analysis
The Court, upon consideration of the submissions, observed that both the petitioners, being Indian citizens and consenting adults, are entitled to protection of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court categorically held that the status of the petitioners, whether married or in a live-in relationship, is not a germane factor for consideration while adjudicating their right to life and personal liberty. Without entering into the validity of the memorandum of understanding executed between the petitioners, the Court opined that they are entitled to due protection in accordance with law.
Decision
Accordingly, taking note of the submission made on behalf of the State that necessary police assistance would be provided, the Court disposed of the petition by directing that the petitioners may approach the Station House Officer or beat constable concerned as and when required, and the police authorities shall take all possible steps to provide adequate protection. The Court further directed that in case of any change in residence, the petitioners shall inform the jurisdictional police station to ensure continued protection.
[Meena Akhilesh Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(CRL) 1091 of 2026, decided on 6-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Lakshay Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC with Alok Sharma, Advocates, SI- Talib Khan
Buy Constitution of India HERE
