Not married, not of age – still entitled to life protection.

Two young lives, one Article, and a court that refused to look away

Rekha Meghwanshi was 20. Ranjeet was 19. They fell in love, and they started living together. That should have been the end of the story. Instead, it became the beginning of a nightmare.

Rekha’s parents and relatives were furious. Not just angry — furious enough to threaten to find the couple and kill them. The young pair ran to the police for help. The police did nothing. Terrified, they filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, asking for protection of their lives. Their problem? Ranjeet had not yet turned 21 — the legal marriageable age for males under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The couple was not married. They were, in the eyes of the law, in a live-in relationship. And the State’s first instinct was to treat that as a problem.

Justice Arun Monga, sitting alone, had to decide: does the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution depend on whether you are married, or whether you have reached the right age to marry? The answer, delivered on 21 August 2024, was a resounding no.

The threat that no one would take seriously

The facts were straightforward. Rekha and Ranjeet, both adults — Rekha being 20 and Ranjeet 19 — chose to live together. This did not sit well with Rekha’s family. The private respondents — her parents and relatives — began issuing threats. The couple approached the police for protection. The police declined to act. So the couple moved an application before the High Court under its original criminal writ jurisdiction.

The petition was filed as S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1730/2024. The couple asked for a simple thing: protection of their life and liberty. The State, through its police machinery, argued — or at least implied — that because the couple was not married, and because Ranjeet was below the marriageable age, the court should not intervene.

Justice Monga saw the problem immediately. The State was treating a statutory age requirement as a reason to deny a fundamental right. That, the learned Judge held, could not stand.

What the Constitution actually says

The Court began with first principles. Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. That right, the Bench observed, “stands on the highest pedestal” in the constitutional scheme. It is not a conditional right. It does not come with fine print that says “only if you are married” or “only if you have reached the age of majority for marriage.”

The Court held that the right to human life must be treated on a much higher pedestal regardless of whether a citizen is a minor or a major. Mere failure to meet the marriageable age under the Hindu Marriage Act cannot deprive a citizen of fundamental rights. The State’s constitutional duty to protect life and liberty is absolute. It does not depend on the validity of a marriage, or even on the existence of a marriage at all.

This is the core of the judgment. The ratio decidendi is simple and powerful: Article 21 protection transcends marital status and marriageable age. The State cannot hide behind a statutory provision to avoid its constitutional obligation.

The line of cases that sealed the argument

Justice Monga did not write on a clean slate. He drew from a rich line of precedents, all pointing in the same direction.

The most directly on-point case was Seema Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others (CRWP No. 4725 of 2021, Punjab & Haryana High Court). That court had held that protection must be granted to runaway couples even when they are not married, are in live-in relationships, or where the marriage is invalid due to age. Denying protection to persons opting to reside together without marriage who face dire consequences would be a travesty of justice and a failure to uphold Article 21. Justice Monga followed this reasoning.

He also relied on Rajwinder Kaur and another v. State of Punjab (2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 785), which held that marriage is not a prerequisite for security to be provided to a runaway couple. The police must ensure no harm to life and liberty, period.

The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others (2018 (5) RCR (Criminal) 981) was also cited. That case established that the right to exercise assertion of choice is an inseparable facet of liberty and dignity. Once an individual who is a major has chosen a partner, no family member can object and cause hindrance to their peaceful existence. The State must ensure protection.

Other authorities — Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2011) 6 SCC 396), Rajveer Kaur v. State of Punjab (2019 (3) RCR (Civil) 478), Priyapreet Kaur v. State of Punjab (2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 604), and Kamini Devi v. State of UP (2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 421) — all reinforced the same principle: protection to runaway couples is not conditioned on marriage.

The obiter that matters for tomorrow

Justice Monga also made two observations that, while not strictly necessary for the decision, will likely be cited in future cases.

First, he noted that live-in relationships may not be acceptable to all, but they cannot be said to be illegal or constitute an offence. He pointed out that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 accords protection to women in “domestic relationships” without using the word “wife,” thereby protecting female live-in partners and children of live-in couples. This observation could be significant in future cases concerning rights of live-in partners, particularly regarding maintenance, property, and succession rights.

Second, the Court took judicial notice of the prevalence of honour killings in northern parts of India, particularly in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. This is not new — the Supreme Court has said as much in Shakti Vahini — but it reinforces the need for courts in these states to be particularly vigilant when young couples approach them for protection.

What the court actually ordered

The operative order was precise and practical. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural and the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara to verify the contents of the petition, particularly the threat perception of the petitioners. Thereafter, they were to provide necessary protection qua their life and liberty, if deemed fit. Pending applications were disposed of.

Notice what the Court did not do. It did not declare the couple married. It did not validate their relationship. It did not say that Ranjeet could marry Rekha before turning 21. It simply said: whatever the status of your relationship, you have a right to live. The State must protect that right.

Why this matters for practitioners

For advocates who regularly handle protection petitions for couples, this judgment is a powerful tool. The State often resists such petitions on the ground that the couple is not married, or that one party is below the marriageable age. This judgment shuts that argument down. The ratio is clear: Article 21 protection does not depend on marital status or marriageable age.

For CFOs and founders, the lesson is different but equally important. This case is a reminder that fundamental rights are not conditional. Whether you are dealing with employment contracts, partnership disputes, or regulatory compliance, the principle applies: the State cannot use a statutory technicality to deny a basic constitutional right. If you are facing a threat to your life or liberty, the State must act — regardless of whether you have checked every box in every other law.

THE PLAY: When filing a protection petition for an unmarried couple where one party is below the marriageable age, cite Rekha Meghwanshi and Seema Kaur to pre-empt the State’s argument that the relationship is not legally valid. The ratio is that Article 21 trumps Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The bottom line

Rekha and Ranjeet walked into the Rajasthan High Court with nothing but a fear for their lives and a Constitution that promised to protect them. They walked out with a clear direction to the police: verify the threat, and protect them. The judgment is a reminder that the right to life is not a reward for good behaviour. It is not a privilege granted only to those who follow every rule. It is the first right, the highest right, and it belongs to every person — married or unmarried, of age or not yet of age.

For the advocate, the CFO, and the founder alike, the takeaway is this: when the State tries to hide behind a statutory technicality to avoid its constitutional duty, cite Rekha Meghwanshi. The right to life does not wait for you to turn 21.