In a landmark judgment affirming personal liberty, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that two consenting adults have the legal right to enter a live-in relationship, even if they have not attained the statutory age of marriage. The court firmly stated that the threshold of adulthood, not marriageability, governs the exercise of fundamental rights.
The Case That Led to the Clarification
The ruling was delivered by a bench led by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand while hearing a protection petition filed by a young couple from Kota. The woman, aged 18, and the man, aged 19, had voluntarily entered into a live-in relationship and had formalized their arrangement through a written live-in agreement dated 27 October 2025.
Facing strong opposition and alleged threats of physical harm from their families, the couple sought help from local police. When the police failed to act, they approached the High Court for protection. The state government contested their plea, arguing that since the young man was below 21 years—the minimum legal age for men to marry—the couple should not be permitted to live together in a live-in arrangement.
Court's Reasoning: Adulthood vs. Marriageability
Justice Dhand categorically rejected the state's argument, drawing a clear legal distinction. The court held that the capacity to marry and the right to make autonomous life choices are separate issues. It emphasized two core principles:
Firstly, any individual aged 18 or above is recognized as an adult under Indian law. This adulthood confers the right to make personal decisions, including the choice of partner and cohabitation.
Secondly, this choice is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court explicitly noted that the state cannot interfere with or deprive individuals of these fundamental rights merely because they are not legally old enough to marry.
The judgment reaffirmed that live-in relationships are neither illegal nor an offence under Indian law, providing a significant shield to couples choosing this path.
Police Directed to Provide Protection
Acknowledging the genuine threat perception presented by the couple, the court issued specific directions to the Kota district police. The authorities were instructed to:
- Verify the threats mentioned in the petition.
- Evaluate the couple's request for protection strictly according to the law.
- Provide necessary protection if their assessment confirms a potential risk to the couple's safety and liberty.
This order reinforces the state's constitutional duty to protect every individual's life and personal liberty, irrespective of their marital status.
What the Judgment Means: Scope and Limits
The ruling provides crucial clarity on the rights of young adults in India:
What it Recognizes:
- Consenting adults (18+) can legally choose to cohabit.
- The right to live together is not restricted by the marriageable age (21 for men, 18 for women).
- Live-in relationships are legitimate choices protected by Article 21.
- Courts can be approached for protection if couples face threats for their choice.
What it Does Not Do:
- It does not change the statutory age for marriage.
- It does not grant live-in partnerships the same legal status as marriage in matters like inheritance, maintenance, or spousal rights.
- It does not apply to minors; both partners must be at least 18 years old.
Broader Legal Context and Significance
This judgment aligns with an evolving judicial trend in India that recognizes live-in relationships as a social reality deserving of legal protection. Previously, various courts, including the Rajasthan High Court itself, have suggested mechanisms for registering live-in agreements and addressing related issues like maintenance.
For young adults across India, this ruling is a powerful reaffirmation of their constitutional freedoms. In a social landscape where live-in relationships often attract stigma and familial pressure, the court has provided a clear legal foundation: legal adulthood brings the right to choose one's partner and living arrangement. While societal attitudes may take time to change, the judiciary has underscored that the law firmly safeguards personal liberty.
