[2026:RJ-JP:17494] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 639/2026 1. Urmila Wife of Dinesh Jatav, Daughter of Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 31 Years, Resident of Village Khedla Sadak Pura, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 2. Dilip, Son of Shriphal, Aged About 34 Years, Resident of 09, Bhopariya Ka Pura, Hindaun, District Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur 4. Superintendent of Police, Karauli. 5. Station House Officer, Police Station Wajirpur, District Sawai Madhopur. 6. Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Hindaun City, District Karauli. 7. Ajeet Son of Ramswaroop., Resident of Village Khedla Sadak Pura, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 8. Ramswaroop Son of Ghamandi Jatav., Resident of Village Khedla Sadak Pura, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 9. Patoli Son of Unknown, Resident of Village Binega, Hindaun, District Karauli. 10. Dinesh Jatav Son of Shankar, Resident of Village Khedla Sadak Pura, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanak, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS [2026:RJ-JP:17494] (2 of 3) [CRLW-639/2026] Judgment / Order 24/04/2026 The defect(s) pointed out by the Office are waived. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking protection of their life and personal liberty. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that petitioner No.1 is already married. The issue as to whether a live-in-relationship between a married and an unmarried person is legally permissible and whether such persons are entitled to protection, has already been considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rashika Khandal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC Online Raj. 4296. In the aforesaid judgment, while taking into consideration law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D. Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469, it was held that such a relationship is not permissible and consequently, the petitioners are not entitled to seek protection. Relevant paras of the judgment in Rashika Khandal (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow: “2. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that Petitioner No.2 is already married. A live-in-relationship between a married and unmarried person is not permissible. 3. The pre-requities for a live-in-relationship as held by the Apex Court in “D.Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469” is that the couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses and must be of legal age to [2026:RJ-JP:17494] (3 of 3) [CRLW-639/2026] marry or qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried. 4. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed.” In view of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Rajasthan High Court, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the criminal writ petition is dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J YOGESH KUMAR /96