HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10748 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record. 2. By means of the supplementary affidavit the petitioners have brought on record the domicile certificate of petitioner no.2 dated 22.11.2025, copy of which is Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State-opposite parties no.1, 2 & 3. 4. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party no.4 is dispensed with. 5. Instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents no.1 and 2 to take necessary action against the respondent no.3 for causing illegal harassment of the innocent petitioners and family members of petitioner no.2. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the petitioners are major and they are in live-in relationship on their own volition. In support of the petitioners being major, the petitioners have annexed copies of their High School mark sheets from which it emerges that the petitioners are major. It is contended that respondent No.4 is not happy with the live-in relationship and, as such, he is creating hindrance in the peaceful live-in relation of the petitioners. Learned counsel has further stated that no First Information Report has been registered against Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shailendra Kr Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Priya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the petitioners in this regard. 7. In this regard, it would be apt to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkumar & Anr vs State of Kerala & Ors : (2018) 16 SCC 602, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:- "10. .... 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 live-in 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." 8. The petitioners have also pleaded for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees liberty to lead life of their own with dignity. 9. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner. 10. It is made clear that if any F.I.R. is already registered on the issue, the order passed by this Court shall automatically stand discharged. 11. It is however made clear that this Court has not entered into nor adjudicated the age of the petitioners nor veracity/validity of the alleged marriage. November 28, 2025 A. Katiyar CRLP No. 10748 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench