Ms Suchita Vishwakarma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20048
1 WP-23245-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
rd
ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 23245 of 2026
MS SUCHITA VISHWAKARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sandeep Dangi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Rishabh Singh Chauhan Government Advocate for State.
ORDER
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners both of whom are
aged 20 years seeking the following relief:-

“(1) Direct respondents no. 1 to 3 to provide adequate protection
to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
(2) Direct the police authorities to ensure that no harm is caused to
the Petitioners by Respondents Nos.4 and 5 or any other person
acting on their behalf, while recording statement of petitioner No.1
in police station.
(3) Direct respondents not to take any coercive action against the
petitioner.
(4) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The grievance of the petitioners are that they are residing together
against the wishes of their parents, but are apprehending that some untoward
action may be taken by the parents of petitioners, thus, protection in this
regard has been sought.
3. In support of his contention that protection can be granted to live in
partner also, counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 23-07-2026
18:34:27

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20048
2 WP-23245-2026
decision rendered by the Supreme Court in case of Nandakumar v. State of

Kerala reported as (2018) 16 SCC 602, in which in a habeas corpus petition,
the Supreme Court has taken note of the relationship between the persons
involved, and opined that since both the persons were major, and even if they
are not competent to enter into wedlock, they have a right to live together
and even outside the wedlock. Thus, it is submitted that the present
petitioners, who are entitled to reside together may be protected from any
violence by any person or their parents.
4. Shri Rishabh Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the
respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the prayer, and submitted
that petitioner no.2 boy is only 20 years old, and has not even completed 21
years which is marriageable age, and thus, it is submitted that no case for
interference is made out. It is also submitted that if such protection is
granted, it would not be in the larger interest of the society, and would
promote promiscuousness in the society.
5. Heard. Having considered the rival submissions, and on perusal of
the documents filed on record, as also the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme court, in para 10 of which it has been observed as under:-

"10.We need not go into this aspect in detail. 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
“livein 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. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is inclined to allow the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 23-07-2026
18:34:27

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20048
3 WP-23245-2026
petition as despite the fact that both the petitioners are 20 years old only, and

have not even completed 21 years, they are entitled to reside as per their own
will, and if they so decide, their choice needs to be protected from external
forces.
7. Having held so, this Court must record its concern on the choices,
the youngsters are making these days. Although there is much to ponder over
this subject but it must be remembered that even though certain rights have
been conferred by the Constitution, it is 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 and
this would naturally obviate possibility of going to a school or a college, and
if you get into this struggle of life at an early age by choice, not only your
chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life are drastically affected but
your acceptance in the society is also reduced, and it is far more difficult for
a girl who can also become pregnant at an early age, leading to further
complications in her life. Thus, discretion is advised while opting for such
choices and enforcing such rights, as it is one thing to have the rights and
another to enforce them.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed, and
respondents are directed to provide such protection to the petitioners as
required. Counsel for the petitioners is also directed to apprise the petitioners
about the concerns expressed by this court.
9. It is directed that a copy of this order be supplied to the office of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 23-07-2026
18:34:27

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20048
4 WP-23245-2026
Advocate General so that this order may be communicated to the respondent

no.2/Superintendent of Police, Agar Malwa for prompt compliance of the
order.
10. The concerned SHO, Police Station Nalkheda/respondent no.3 is
also directed to share his/her mobile number with the petitioners so that they
can reach him/her at any time, in case of any emergency.
11. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. All the pending
interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
BDJ

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: BHUNESHWAR
DATT
Signing time: 23-07-2026
18:34:27