[2026:RJ-JP:16286] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 402/2026 1. Sania W/o Javed D/o Sh. Abdula, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Gaonri, Post Gaomnri District Bharatpur (Raj.) - 321023 At Present R/o Village Barka District Bharatpur. 2. Shakil Khan S/o Sh. Asraf Khan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Barka District Bharatpur ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department of Home Affairs Govt. Secretariat Jaipur. 2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent of Police Deeg, District Deeg (Raj.) 4. The Nodal Officer, Deeg Unit Crime Against Women, Cell, Deeg (Raj.). 5. The Station House Officer Police Station Sikri, District Deeg (Raj.) 6. Akil S/o Abdula, R/o Village Malav, District Nuh (Haryana) 7. Sahar S/o Abdula, R/o Village Malav, District Nuh (Haryana) 8. Sahun S/o Hajar, R/o Village Malav, District Nuh (Haryana) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 17/04/2026 No one is present on behalf of the petitioners. The defect(s) pointed out by the office are waived. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State. [2026:RJ-JP:16286] (2 of 3) [CRLW-402/2026] 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:16286] (3 of 3) [CRLW-402/2026] writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the criminal writ petition is dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J YOGESH KUMAR /115