Adults in live-in relationships are entitled to life and liberty protection regardless of marriageable age.

The petitioners, both aged 20 years, filed a writ petition seeking police protection for their life and liberty.

They are residing together in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their parents and expressed a substantiated apprehension of harm or coercive action from the parents (Respondents No. 4 and 5) or the police.

The State opposed the petition on the grounds that petitioner no. 2 (the male) had not yet reached the legal marriageable age of 21, arguing that granting protection would promote "promiscuousness" and harm societal interests.

1. Whether two consenting adults, who have attained the age of majority but have not reached the legal marriageable age, have the right to live together and seek protection from external interference.

2. Whether the state can deny protection to life and liberty based on societal morality or the non-attainment of marriageable age.

The court primarily relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court of India in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018) 16 SCC 602, which established that even if individuals are not competent to enter into a legal wedlock, they possess the right to live together outside of marriage as long as they are majors.

The court also noted that "live-in relationships" are recognized by the legislature under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The court reasoned that since both petitioners are 20 years old, they are majors in the eyes of the law and entitled to reside according to their own will.

While the court acknowledged the State's concern regarding the male petitioner’s marriageable age (20 years instead of 21), it held that legal majority is the relevant threshold for the exercise of choice regarding cohabitation.

The court balanced this legal right with a judicial caution, observing that while constitutional rights exist, their enforcement at an early age—without economic independence from parents—can lead to severe socio-economic hardships and reduced societal acceptance. However, the court concluded that the individual's choice must be protected from "external forces" regardless of these practical complexities.

The court allowed the petition and directed the State respondents to provide adequate protection to the petitioners' life and liberty, specifically ordering the Superintendent of Police, Agar Malwa, to ensure compliance and the SHO of Police Station Nalkheda to share their mobile number with the petitioners.