Smt Anjali Bind and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10305 of 2026

¶3

Smt Anjali Bind And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Gulab Chandra Tiwari, Priti Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 81

¶7

HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Prabhas Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶9

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful life and also for a direction to provide protection.

¶10

Both the petitioners are present before the Court. Petitioner no. 1 (the girl) has stated before this Court that she is living in a live-in relationship with petitioner no. 2 and that she is being harassed and humiliated by her family members. It is, therefore, prayed that the police be directed to ensure protection of their civil rights, as they have not committed any offence by residing together under the same roof.

¶11

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are unmarried and they are staying in a live-in relationship. They apprehend danger to their life. Hence, the petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction upon the Police Authorities to protect their life from the private respondents.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶13

This Court in Writ-C No. 35171 of 2025 (Akanksha and Another vs.

¶14

WRIC No. 10305 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

State of U.P. and Three Others), decided on 17.12.2025, has dealt with the same controversy. The facts of the present case is similar to the facts of Akanksha (supra) . Therefore the present writ petition is being disposed of in the following terms.

¶17

Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence. It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major, married or unmarried. Mere fact that the petitioners have not solemnized marriage, would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution of India being citizens of India. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Constitutional's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct, under the Constitutional scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.

¶18

The petitioners herein, who are major, have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of the marriage and it is not for the Courts to judge them on their decision. If the petitioners herein have not committed any offence, this Court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together peacefully and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. As right to life is a fundamental life ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution wherein it is provided that no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

¶20

In case, any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP concerned with certified copy of this order and the Police Officer after being satisfied that the petitioners are major and willingly

¶21

WRIC No. 10305 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

living together, will provide immediate protection to the petitioners. If the petitioners are educated and they produce their educational certificates and other certificates admissible under law, from which it is evident that they have attained the majority and they are living with their free will then no Police Officer shall take any coercive action against them unless an F.I.R. is registered against them in respect of any offence whatsoever. If they do not have any documentary proof regarding age and they come from rural background and or illiterate/semi-literate, the Police Officer can subject such boy or girl to ossification test to verify their correct age and he can also follow the other procedure permissible under the law.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶25

(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

¶26

March 19, 2026 Radhika

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Anjali Bind and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anjali Bind and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Papu vs State of U.P. and Another

X Juvenile vs State of Up and 3 Others

Rahul Karauriya vs State of U.P. and Another

Preeti Soni and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Moinuddin Ajmeri vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Samreen and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Other