Allahabad High Court
/11449/2025 of SALONI DHANWARE AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND OTHERS on 8 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11449 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard the petitioner nos.1 and 2 who appear in person and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. 2. In view of the order proposed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11449 of 2025
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard the petitioner nos.1 and 2 who appear in person and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party no.4 is dispensed with.
3. Instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to provide protection to the petitioners so that the life and liberty of the petitioners could be safe along with a further prayer to restrain the opposite party no. 4 not to disturb the peaceful life of the petitioners under live-in-relation.
4. The petitioners state that they are major and they are in live-in relationship on their own volition. In support of the petitioners being major, the petitioner nos.1 and 2 have annexed high school certificate and Aadhar Card as annexure No.2 to this petition respectively, from which it emerges that the petitioners are major. Further the petitioners in the writ petition duly supported by an affidavit have indicated that both the petitioners are major. They further state that respondent No.4 is not happy with the live-in relationship and, as such, he is creating hindrance in their peaceful live-in relation. It is also stated that no First Information Report has been registered against the petitioners in this regard.
Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Saloni Dhanware And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)
5. In this regard, it would be apt to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkumar & Anr vs State of Kerala & Ors : (2018) 16 SCC 602, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:- "10. .... For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that both Appellant 1 and Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that live-in relationship is now recognised by the legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."
6. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner.
7. It is made clear that if any F.I.R. is already registered on the issue, the order passed by this Court shall automatically stand discharged.
8. It is however made clear that this Court has not entered into nor adjudicated the age of the petitioners nor veracity/validity of the live-in relation. December 8, 2025 Shravan CRLP No. 11449 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench