MP High Court Grants Police Protection to Live-In Couple; Holds 20-Year-Old Woman's Choice Must Be Respected

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore held that a 20-year-old woman, being a major, has the right to reside with a partner of her choice, and directed police to protect the couple from family interference.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, on 3 June 2026, allowed a writ petition filed by a live-in couple — aged 20 and 26 respectively — who were residing together against the wishes of their families and feared violence or a false criminal case being lodged against them. Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta, sitting singly, held that since petitioner No. 1 is a major, her choice of partner and residence is entitled to protection from external forces, regardless of the fact that she has not yet completed 21 years, the general marriageable age. The court directed the police to provide protection and also required the concerned SHO to share a mobile number with the petitioners for emergency contact.

The Dispute Before the Court

The two petitioners — identified in the cause title as Ridham Verma and another — filed Writ Petition No. 19028 of 2026 seeking four reliefs: police protection against respondent No. 4 and his associates, action against respondent No. 4 in accordance with law, security against a false case being registered against petitioner No. 2, and any other appropriate order.

Their case was straightforward: they were living together against the wishes of their parents and apprehended that some untoward action might be taken against them. Petitioner No. 1 is 20 years old; petitioner No. 2 is 26 years old. Both are adults. They were not married but were cohabiting as a couple.

The State opposed the petition. The government advocate argued that petitioner No. 1 had not completed 21 years, which is the marriageable age, and that granting protection in such circumstances would not be in the larger interest of society and would promote promiscuousness.

The Legal Question: Does Majority Suffice Without Marriageable Age?

The central question was whether a woman who has attained majority at 18 years but has not yet reached the marriageable age of 21 years can claim the right to live with a partner of her choice and seek police protection for that choice.

Counsel for the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, reported as (2018) 16 SCC 602. That case arose from a habeas corpus petition in which the Supreme Court considered the relationship between two persons who were major. The court in that case observed that even if the parties were not competent to enter into wedlock, they have a right to live together, including outside wedlock, and that live-in relationships are now recognised by the legislature under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Gupta extracted paragraph 10 of Nandakumar v. State of Kerala directly. The Supreme Court had observed: “Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock.” The Supreme Court had also noted that live-in relationships have found legislative recognition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Applying this reasoning, Justice Gupta held that petitioner No. 1, despite being only 20 years old and not having completed 21 years, is a major. As a major, she is entitled to reside as per her own will. If she decides to live with a partner of her choice, that choice needs to be protected from external forces.

The court did not accept the State's argument that granting protection would be contrary to the larger interest of society. The reasoning was grounded in the legal status of the petitioner as a major, not in any assessment of the social desirability of the arrangement. The court also directed counsel for the petitioners to apprise them of the concerns expressed by the court, without specifying what those concerns were beyond what appears in the order.

The court's reliance on Nandakumar is significant because that decision explicitly decoupled the right to cohabit from the right to marry. The Madhya Pradesh High Court applied that principle to a situation where the woman had crossed the age of majority but not the age of marriage, rejecting the State's attempt to use the marriageable age threshold as a reason to deny protection.

Directions Issued

The court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:

Respondents — the State and police authorities — were directed to provide protection to the petitioners as required. A copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the office of the Advocate General so that it could be communicated to respondent No. 2, the DCP, Zone – 1, Indore, for prompt compliance.

The concerned SHO of the Police Station, Indore, District Indore — respondent No. 3 — was directed to share his or her mobile number with the petitioners so that they could reach the officer at any time in case of an emergency.

Counsel for the petitioners was directed to inform the petitioners about the concerns expressed by the court.

Order

Writ Petition No. 19028 of 2026 was allowed and disposed of on 3 June 2026 by Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench. Police protection was directed. The DCP, Zone – 1, Indore was made responsible for prompt compliance, and the SHO of the concerned police station was required to make his or her contact number available to the petitioners for emergency use.