Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117433 Court No. - 77 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20742 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Swati And Another Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjay Pundir,Sanjay Kumar Pundir Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yogesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioner no.1 is having live-in-relationship with petitioner no. 2 against the wishes of her husband/respondent no.4 as well, therefore, apprehend threat to their lives by him. In the given background, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition for seeking direction to the police/respondents to take appropriate measures to protect their lives. 3. While seeking protection for a couple, wherein on behalf of the lady i.e. petitioner no. 1, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that without seeking divorce, she has already leading her life as married couple with petitioner no. 2 and the relation so developed between petitioners no. 1 and 2 is broadly called and termed as live in relationship, which has been given sanctity vide judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nandakumar and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others decided on 20.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4488 of 2017. 4. For substantiating his arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, he also relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. and Others decided on 09.04.2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2018 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5777 of 2017, through which it has been held that Marital status is conferred through legislation or, as the case may be, custom. Deprivation of marital status is a matter of serious import and must be strictly in accordance with law. The High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to have embarked on the course of annulling the marriage. The Constitution recognizes the liberty and autonomy which inheres in each individual. This includes the ability to take decisions on aspects which define one’s person-hood and identity. The choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable. The absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to demonstrate the prayer made through the instant petition for seeking protection in favour of those couple who are not at all married, but also leading their life as life partner after certain disputes which is already been instituted at the behest of husband of petitioner no. 1. 6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the roaster lies before this Court is for considering the prayer for extension of protection in favour of married couple or who are intended to marry with each other in due process of law along with customary rights and provisions which enable any couple to be recognized as a married couple. 7. The arguments so raised by learned counsel for the petitioners substantiated by above preferred judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court has to be given highest respect but at the same time, the extension of prayer sought through the instant petition is not applicable for those who are already involved in several types of conflicted litigation in shape of civil and criminal and the status of marriage is still disputed by earlier partner (husband/wife). In these circumstances if the extension of prayer may be extended in favour of the petitioners then that will be the abuse of process of law, which is already pending between the parties. Since, protection in shape of providing police force in case there is a breach of personal liberty or there is apprehension of threat of life, the same subject matter has to be considered by this Court while considering the prayer as mentioned in the petition but here the matter is entirely different where a married lady once left her house for petitioner no. 2 and thereafter again repatriated herself with her earlier husband, again left her house and rejoin the petitioner no. 2 and in between coming back and going back to the earlier positions, there are certain criminal matters instituted by the petitioner no. 1 against the petitioner no. 2, which is still pending to be adjudicated by the concerned court. 8. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, the prayer made through the instant petition is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence, the instant writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 #Vik/- Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad