ORDER : 1. The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this cri. Writ petition and by exercising the power conferred section 226 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice pass the order or directions to the respondents to provided the protection to the petitioners to their life and liberty and further respondent no. 1 to 3 be directed to give the protection to the petitioners from respondent no 4 for their life and liberty. The respondent no. 4 directed not to interfere in any manner in the life of petitioners and further he directed not to create any problem in any manner in their life and may not cause any type of injury to the petitioners and stop threatening them.” 2. By way of filing this criminal writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the respondents to provide protection to the petitioners from the private respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both petitioners are adults and want to perform marriage with each other, but the petitioner No.2 has not attained the age of eligibility for getting married with the petitioner No.1, as he is below the age of 21 years. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, they have decided to stay together in a live in- relationship, till attaining the age of marriage. However, family members of the petitioners have not consented to such act of the petitioners and have threatened them with causing harm to their life and personal liberty. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners had approached the Nodal Officer, i.e., SHO Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, Sawai Madhopur by way of filing a representation, but no heed has been paid to the said representation. Under these compelling circumstances, they have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. The issue involved in this petition is no more res integra since the same has been decided by this Court in the case of Priya Suman & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. The issue involved in this petition is no more res integra since the same has been decided by this Court in the case of Priya Suman & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1537/2025 on 01.12.2025 and it has been held in Paras 7 to 13 as under:- “7. As per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the minimum age of the bride and bridegroom should be 18 years and 21 years respectively to perform marriage. It is admitted case of the petitioners that both of them are major and have attained the age of majority and maturity and they have decided to perform marriage with each other. The only hurdle and rider between solemnization of their marriage is the age of the petitioner No.2, who has not attained the eligible age of 21 years to perform marriage with the petitioner No.1. Hence, they cannot be left at the mercy of the private respondents, who are against their aforesaid decision. 8. In Lata Singh Vs. State of UP & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 2522 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a live in-relationship between two consensual adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence. In the case at hand, the petitioner No.2 has not yet attained the age of 21 years, therefore, he not being of marriageable age, the petitioners cannot be deprived to live together in such type of relationship. 9. Even, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1730/2024 vide order dated 21.08.2024 dealt with the identical situation, has held in Para Nos.5 to 12 as under:- “5. Facts, as pleaded in the petition, succinctly are that petitioner No.1 born on 02.01.2004 and petitioner No.2, born on 08.05.2005, are purportedly in love with each other. They have been living together in relationship for past couple of days. 6. Petitioners have decided to get married once petitioner No.2 attains the marriageable age but parents of petitioner No.1 are against their marriage. They have been living together in relationship for past couple of days. 6. Petitioners have decided to get married once petitioner No.2 attains the marriageable age but parents of petitioner No.1 are against their marriage. Ever since they started staying together in a live-in relationship, private respondents Nos.6 to 9 have been threatening them with dire consequences. Apprehension is that parents may even will kill both petitioners by tracing them from wherever they are. 7. In the circumstances, the petitioners approached the police authorities with necessary documents to safeguard their life and liberty, but no action is being taken on same. Hence, the instant petition. 8. The petitioners state that they are living in constant danger of their life, as they have every apprehension that private respondents will catch them and carry out their threats and may go to the extent of even committing their murder. The petitioners are, therefore, running here and there and unable to find any safe place to live in the absence of protection of their life and liberty. Hence the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the official respondents to provide protection qua their life and liberty. 9. Controversy that needs adjudication now thus is whether an appropriate writ/direction or order is warranted to allay the apprehension of the petitioners for granting protection to them for enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The issue in hand, however, is not marriage of the petitioners, but the deprivation of fundamental right of seeking protection of life and liberty. I have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties. 10. It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major. Mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their fundamental right, as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India. 11. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major. Mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their fundamental right, as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India. 11. Reference may be had, in the aforesaid context, to ajudgment rendered by Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRWP No. 4725 of 2021 titled Seema Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others , wherein, speaking for court, Sant Parkash,J., opined as under :- “This Court in the past and also recently has allowed protection to those runaway couples, even though they were not married and were in a live-in relationship, and in cases where the marriage was invalid (as one of the parties though a major, was not of age as per Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act). Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Rajwinder Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab, 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 785 where it was held that marriage is not a must for security to be provided to a runaway couple. The police authorities were directed to ensure that no harm was caused by any one to the life and liberty of the couple. Similar views have been taken by the Coordinate Benches in the case of Rajveer Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 2019 (3) RCR (Civil) 478 and in Priyapreet Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 604 amongst others. Different High Courts too have allowed protection to runaway couples who are not married. Again reference can be made to a recent judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Kamini Devi vs. State of U.P. 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 421 and in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 The concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence. Even under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman who is in a 'domestic relationship' has been provided protection, maintenance etc. It is interesting to note that the word 'wife' has not been used under the said Act. Even under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman who is in a 'domestic relationship' has been provided protection, maintenance etc. It is interesting to note that the word 'wife' has not been used under the said Act. Thus, the female live-in-partners and the children of live-in couples have been accorded adequate protection by the Parliament. Article 21 as enshrined in the Constitution of India provides for its citizen to a right to life and personal liberty, with a stipulation that they shall not be deprived of it except according to a procedure established by law. In the case of Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India and others, 2018 (5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 981 , the Supreme court has held "The right to exercise Assertion of choice is an in segregable facet of liberty and dignity. That is why the French philosopher and thinker, Simone Weil, has said:-"Liberty, taking the word in itsconcrete sense consists in the ability to choose." At this stage, one cannot also lose sight of honour killings which are prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in parts of States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Honour killing is a result of people marrying without their family's acceptance, and sometimes for marrying outside their caste or religion. Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence. It is for the State at this juncture, to ensure their protection and their personal liberty. It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without the sanctity of marriage and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons from whom protection is sought. In case such a course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and to uphold to the Rule of law”. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the judgment ibid. 12. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the judgment ibid. 12. As an upshot, the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Ruraland Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara are directed to verify the contents of the petition, particularly the threat perception of the petitioners, and thereafter, provide necessary protection qua their life and liberty, if deemed fit.” 10. In the case of Mafi & Anr. Vs. State of Harayana & Ors. while deciding CRWP No. 691/2021 vide order dated 25.01.2021 has held as under: “In the present case, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the validity of the relationship of the petitioners, is required to consider whether the apprehension of the petitioners needs to be redressed. Petitioner No.1 in the present case is more than 18 years of age and is a major. She is well within her right to decide what is good for her and what is not. She has decided to take a step to be in a live-in relationship with petitioner No.2, who is also major, though may not be of a marriageable age. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the petitioners in the present case are major and have a right to live their lives on their own terms. The private respondent Nos.4 to 8 being relatives of petitioner No.1, who is a major, cannot dictate to her how and with whom she should spend her life. Parents cannot compel a child to live a life on their terms. Every adult individual has a right to live his or her life as he or she deems fit. The petitioners are both major and have every right to live their lives as they desire within the four corners of the law. The society cannot determine how an individual should live her or his life. A person with whom someone chooses to spend his or her life with cannot be determined by what society wants. Parents don’t accept their daughter’s choices only because of fear that it is not acceptable to the society. The Constitution of India guarantees every individual the right to life and the choice of a partner is an important facet of the right to life. The petitioners are seeking protection of their lives and liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India guarantees every individual the right to life and the choice of a partner is an important facet of the right to life. The petitioners are seeking protection of their lives and liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for protection of life and personal liberty and further lays down that no person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty except as per the procedure established by law. No doubt petitioner No.2 is not of marriageable age, however, admittedly, he is a major. Merely because of the fact that petitioner No.2 is not of a marriageable age the petitioners cannot possibly be denied enforcement of their fundamental rights as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, both being major, have decided to live together in a live-in relationship and there possibly cannot be any legally justifiable reason for the respondents to object to the same.” 11. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with and decided the identical issue as involved in the instant petition in the case of Nandakumar (supra) by holding and observing as under: “Learned counsel for the appellants is right in his submission. Even the counsel for the State did not dispute the aforesaid position in law and, in fact, supported this submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. Insofar as marriage of appellant No. 1 (who was less than 21 years of age on the date of marriage and was not of marriageable age) with Thushara is concerned, it cannot be said that merely because appellant No. 1 was less than 21 years of age, marriage between the parties is null and void. Appellant No. 1 as well as Thushara are Hindus. Such a marriage is not a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and as per the provisions of section 12, which can be attracted in such a case, at the most, the marriage would be a voidable marriage. Section 5 and Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act make this position clear which are reproduced below: “ 5. Such a marriage is not a void marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and as per the provisions of section 12, which can be attracted in such a case, at the most, the marriage would be a voidable marriage. Section 5 and Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act make this position clear which are reproduced below: “ 5. Conditions for a Hindu marriage - A Marriage may be solemnised between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely- xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (iii) the bridegroom has completed the age of twenty one years and the bride, the age of eighteen years at the time of the marriage.” 12. Voidable marriages .- (1) Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be voidable and may be annulled by a decree of nullity on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that the marriage has not been consummated owing to the impotence of the respondent; or (b) that the marriage is in contravention of the condition specified in clause (ii) of section 5; or (c) that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Act, the 1978 (2 of 1978), the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent; or (d) that the respondent was at the time of the marriage pregnant by some person other than the petitioner.” We need not go into this aspect in detail. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that both appellant No. 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 ‘live-in relationship’ is now recognized by the Legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.” 12. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under the ambit of the fundamental rights, and any threat to these rights constitutes violation of the same. 13. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under the ambit of the fundamental rights, and any threat to these rights constitutes violation of the same. 13. It is a well settled legal position, as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP & Anr. AIR 2006 SC 2522 , S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC 600, Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755 and Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan KM & Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 368 and passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024 decided on 03.03.2025, that the life and personal liberty of individuals has to be protected, except according to procedure established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and personal liberty of the citizens." 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach Nodal Officer, i.e., SHO Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, Sawai Madhopur, by way of filing a representation in light of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024 on 03.03.2025. 7. In case, such representation is submitted, it is expected from the Nodal Officer to decide the representation, so submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law and ensure that after analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, he may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 9. However, it is made clear that whatever has been observed by this Court in the present order is only for the purpose of disposal of the instant criminal writ petition and the same shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated, if any, against the petitioners.