Join our WhatsApp Group
Breaking
Saturday, October 10, 2026 Jaipur Edition
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
Constitutional Law

Protection Orders for Married Persons in Live-in Relationships: Rajasthan High Court Refers Conflicting Views to Larger Bench

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court referred to a Special/Larger Bench the question whether a married person living with an unmarried person, or two persons each still married to someone else, can get a protection order from the Court without dissolving their marriages, because co-ordinate Benches had taken conflicting views (paras 22, 36, 41-42). In the same order it directed that, until legislation is framed, live-in-relationship agreements be registered by a competent authority in each district (paras 18-20).

Protection Orders for Married Persons in Live-in Relationships: Rajasthan High Court Refers Conflicting Views to Larger Bench

Judgment Intelligence

Other
R & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2025:RJ-JP:1930
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2183/2024 (with S.B. Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 2057/2024, 1951/2024 and 2277/2024)
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
29 January 2025
Bench
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
Relevant Acts & Sections
Constitution of India — Articles 19, 21, 226; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 13; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 497 (struck down); Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand, 2024 (referred to)
Final Outcome

Question referred to a Special/Larger Bench, to be constituted by the Chief Justice; the petitions were not finally decided (paras 42-43). Copies of the order went to the Chief Secretary and the law departments, with a compliance report due by 01.03.2025 (para 21).

View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. The right to live with a partner of one's choice is part of Article 21; a live-in relationship is not illegal, though socially unaccepted (paras 4, 8).
  2. Until legislation is framed, a competent authority in each district must register live-in-relationship agreements and redress the partners’ grievances, with a web portal (paras 18-20).
  3. Rajasthan High Court Benches have both granted and refused protection where one or both partners remain married (paras 25-35).
  4. That question was referred to a Special/Larger Bench rather than decided (paras 41-43).

Brief Facts

Four connected criminal writ petitions were filed by couples living in live-in relationships, seeking protection of their life and liberty. In two of them the cause title describes the woman petitioner as the wife of a private respondent. The Court noted that couples facing threats from their families file dozens of such petitions every day under Article 226, and keep coming even after representing to the Nodal Officers designated under its order in an earlier protection case (paras 10-11). Apart from the general position of such couples, the petitions raised the question whether a couple in which one or both partners are still married to someone else is entitled to a protection order (paras 22, 25).

Court's Findings

The Court said that the right to live with a partner of one's choice is part of Article 21, and that the Supreme Court has held live-in relationships not illegal though socially unaccepted, citing Khushboo, Indra Sarma and Lata Singh (paras 4, 8). No law governs such relationships or protects female partners and children born of them, so Parliament and the State Legislature should legislate, as Uttarakhand did in its 2024 Uniform Civil Code (paras 13-17). On the second issue, it noted that adultery ceased to be a crime after Joseph Shine but remains a ground for divorce (paras 23-24). Co-ordinate Benches had granted protection to such couples in some cases but refused it in several others, as had the Punjab and Haryana and Allahabad High Courts (paras 26-35). Faced with these conflicting views, the Court held that judicial propriety did not allow it to choose one; following Sundaradas Kanyalal Bhathija, Ayyaswami Gounder, S. Kasi and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community, the question had to go to a Larger Bench for a uniform answer (paras 36-41).

Legal Principle

When co-ordinate Single Benches of a High Court have taken conflicting views on a question of law, a later Single Bench should not prefer one view over the other. Judicial discipline requires it to refer the question to a Larger Bench, through the Chief Justice, so that the law is settled uniformly (paras 37-41, 43).

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. 2010 (5) SCC 600
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4

    Living together is an aspect of the right to life and personal liberty.

  2. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma 2013 (15) SCC 755
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4, 7

    A live-in or marriage-like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, though socially unacceptable; the distinction between a relationship in the nature of marriage and a marital relationship.

  3. Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. 2006 (5) SCC 475
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4

    A live-in relationship between two consenting adults of the opposite sex is no offence, though it may be perceived as immoral.

View all precedents (23)
  1. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal 2010 (10) SCC 469
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 6

    A relationship in the nature of marriage is akin to a common law marriage, which requires, among other things, that the partners be qualified to marry, including being unmarried.

  2. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024, decided on 02.08.2024
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 11

    The State was directed to designate police Nodal Officers to decide, within a time limit, representations of couples seeking protection.

  3. Joseph Shine v. Union of India 2019 (3) SCC 39
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 24

    Section 497 IPC was struck down; adultery is no longer a crime but a civil wrong and a ground for divorce.

  4. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5045/2021, decided on 15.09.2021
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 26

    Protection was granted to a couple of one married and one unmarried partner, holding that Article 21 protection is a constitutional mandate available to all.

  5. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 394/2023, decided on 07.08.2023
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 27

    Protection was granted to such a couple; privacy and liberty cannot be infringed by anyone taking the law into their own hands.

  6. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6375/2020, decided on 04.01.2021
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 28

    Society cannot determine how adults live; the SHO was directed to treat the petition as a complaint and ensure the petitioners’ safety.

  7. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 4296
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 29

    A live-in relationship between a married and an unmarried person is not permissible; protection refused.

  8. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State & Ors. S.B. Crl. Writ Petition No. 1686/2023, decided on 03.11.2023
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 30

    Protection refused because one petitioner was already married.

  9. [name withheld] & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2270/2023, decided on 19.10.2023
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 31

    One of several similar protection petitions rejected by co-ordinate Benches.

  10. [name withheld] & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2148/2023, decided on 06.10.2023
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 31

    One of several similar protection petitions rejected by co-ordinate Benches.

  11. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2142/2023, decided on 06.10.2023
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 31

    One of several similar protection petitions rejected by co-ordinate Benches.

  12. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8651/2022, decided on 01.11.2023
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 31

    One of several similar protection petitions rejected by co-ordinate Benches.

  13. xxxx v. State of Punjab & Ors. (Punjab and Haryana High Court) 2024 PHHC-168063
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 32

    No protection order for couples in such relationships where a partner is married.

  14. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Allahabad High Court, Division Bench) WP(C) No. 14443/2021, decided on 29.07.2021
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 33, 34

    A person already married under the Hindu Marriage Act cannot seek protection for an illicit relationship; a live-in relationship cannot be protected at the cost of the social fabric.

  15. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 3314/2021, decided on 13.08.2021
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 34

    Following [name withheld], no protection for couples in such relationships.

  16. [name withheld] & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4271/2020, decided on 06.11.2020
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 35

    A petition for protection by two persons married to others was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000.

  17. Sundaradas Kanyalal Bhathija & Ors. v. The Collector, Thane, Maharashtra AIR 1990 SC 261
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 37

    A Bench that disagrees with a co-ordinate Bench should refer the matter to a Larger Bench.

  18. Ayyaswami Gounder v. Munuswamy Gounder AIR 1984 SC 1789
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 37

    A Single or Division Bench of a High Court that disagrees with another such Bench of the same Court should refer the matter to a Larger Bench instead of taking a different view.

  19. S. Kasi v. State Through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur Police Station, Madurai District 2021 (12) SCC 1
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 38

    A co-ordinate Bench cannot take a contrary view; in case of doubt it can only refer the matter to a Larger Bench.

  20. Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2005 (2) SCC 673
    Followed Discussed at ¶ 39

    Rules on the binding force of decisions of Benches of larger and co-equal strength and on references to a larger quorum through the Chief Justice.

Topics: Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21) Judicial Consistency Reference to Larger Bench Live-in Relationships
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: January 29, 2025 Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Related Judgments

No Specific Role, No Defamation Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes 2003 Complaint Against Rajasthan Patrika and Its Editor
Rajasthan High Court

No Specific Role, No Defamation Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes 2003 Complaint Against Rajasthan Patrika and Its Editor

Oct 1, 2026
Juvenile Convicted of Murder: Children's Court Must Give Reasons for Fixed-Term Sentence, Rajasthan High Court Holds
Rajasthan High Court

Juvenile Convicted of Murder: Children's Court Must Give Reasons for Fixed-Term Sentence, Rajasthan High Court Holds

Sep 29, 2026
Section 67 Statements and Vague 'Cooperation' Cannot Sustain NDPS Section 29 Charge: Rajasthan High Court Discharges Accused
Rajasthan High Court

Section 67 Statements and Vague 'Cooperation' Cannot Sustain NDPS Section 29 Charge: Rajasthan High Court Discharges Accused

Sep 28, 2026
WhatsApp Telegram X / Twitter LinkedIn

✕

Popular: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt