Abstract
The Rajasthan High Court has become a major defender of personal freedom for couples and live-in partners who encounter opposition from families or society, citing Articles 19, 21 and 14 of the Constitution. This article surveys significant ruling that recognize police protection for inter-caste, interfaith marriages, and live-in partnerships, and at the same time scrutinizes the recent submissions of cases to larger benches for the safeguarding of married people in live-ins.1 Based on the decisions of the years 2024-2025, the paper reveals the judiciary’s struggle between personal freedom and the power of social customs and urges the need for legislative clarification on the matter of live-in registration.
Introduction
In the case of Rajasthan, the firm community and family system often leads to the
individual choice in relationships being at odds with societal pressures resulting in
honour killings and forced separations. The High Court has played as assertive role in protecting such couples by ordering the police to ensure their safety under Article
21’s provision of ‘right to life and personal liberty’, which has been interpreted to include marital and relational autonomy.2 A decision Reena v. State of Rajasthan (2025) highlights the conflict among judges with respect to the protection of cohabiting couples, especially when one partner is already married, which has
recently been the case.
The decisions are founded upon the Supreme Court’s previous decisions such as Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India stating ‘honour cannot supersede constitutional rights.’3 The Court prescribes reporting to police of threats, provision of safe houses, and police being responsible. At the same time, the Court also recommends the establishment of legislative frameworks similar to that of Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code for registration of living together in the future
Protection for Inter-Caste and Interfaith Marriages
The Rajasthan High Court, as a general rule, provides security to the couples of different religions or castes who are at risk of being harmed by their families or by khap panchayats. In a very significant case of 2025, Justice Sameer Jain ordered “enhanced police protection” for the inter-caste couple, denouncing police inactivity and making reference to Prakash Singh v. Union of India for the sake of accountability reforms.4 The Court was of the opinion that the right to choose one’s partner and the right to live freely, covered by Article 14-21 respectively, were violated in case of harassment, which the Court termed as a “constitutional violation”. The Court’s earlier decisions are in harmony with this one: it has invalidated FIRs lodged by the families under false accusations and has even directed the police to protect those who have married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.5 As per legal blogs, the practice in Rajasthan is such that the couple is required to submit certain documents like affidavits of majority/consent, Aadhar, and proof of threat for getting interim relief. Any failure on the part of the police to comply with such requirements will result in punishment for contempt, which has been the case in several orders delivered in 2024-2025.
Judicial Approach to Live-in Relationships
The Article 21 guarantees live-in relationships of consenting adults a very high degree of protection, assuming there is no criminal activity involved. The Court treats them like “in the nature of marriage” for certain rights which are give under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 allowing for maintenance, residence, and safety orders.
Major 2024-2025 verdicts:
Rashika Khandal v. State of Rajasthan (2021, reaffirmed 2024): Protection was not
accorded where one of the partners was married, with justifying subsisting marital
obligations given priority.
Suman Kumari v. State of Rajasthan (2023): No protection for the adulterous live-in
relationships was reiterated, but protection was provided for unmarried consenting
partners.
Nonetheless, Reena v. State of Rajasthan (2025) pointed out disunions and brought
the question of whether married couples living together have the right to protection to a larger bench.9The single judge has pointed out that the registration requirement of Uttarakhand’s UCC could serve as an example, and he has encouraged Rajasthan to make laws filling the gaps for women/ children living in such unions.
Referral to Larger Bench: The Married Live-in Dilemma
In January 2025, the Rajasthan High Court after the Reena case recommended several basic issues to be decided by a larger bench: Can married persons assert live-in protection? Is it necessary to register? The ruling brought to attention contradictions: some courts protect even when there is marriage (referring to Velusamy v. Patchaiammal) while others deny protection (Allahbad/ Punjab & Haryana HCs). The interim orders comprise police consent/ age verification and shelter distribution. Legalblogs analyzing the referral foresee a complicated ruling reasonably balancing the liberty under Article 21 with the echoes and societal harmony from Section 497 IPC (adultery, now abolished). Until a decision is made, single benches extend protection to unmarried couples living together on a case-by-case basis.
Police Accountability and Systemic Reforms
The High Court of Rajasthan issued a set of rulings that pointed out the police should be the “first responders” for the safety of couples. The directives laid down are as follows:- Instantly file FIRs under IPC Sections 506/341 for threats. Provide 24/7 security, use vehicles with GPS for relocation.- Submit monthly compliance reports to the Court. The inter-caste ruling of 2025 was critical of the “diluted” Police Accountability Committees under the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, and insisted on compliance with Prakash Singh. The legal guide of Shekhawat confirms that more than 200 protections were granted in 2024–2025, with threats of contempt ensuring their execution.
Challenges and Legislative Recommendations
The problems are still there: the police are not willing to help in the countryside, the
families take revenge after the protection is over, and there are no statutes concerning live-in relationships.
The Supreme Court in Reena recommended:
– State-wide live-in registry for protections/maintenance.
– Awareness campaigns on Article 21 rights.
– Fast-track Habeas Corpus for missing partners.
Vidhi Centre’s analysis supports UCC-like reforms, noting Rajasthan’s 2025 PILs
pushing mandatory registration.
Conclusion
Rajasthan High Court is the perfect illustration of proactive constitutionalism, which
at first sees couples/live-in partners safe from honour-based violence through police protection, FIR requirements and accountability.21 Recently made referrals indicate the development of the judicial understanding regarding married live-in relationships and the need for legislative clarity.22 The decisions made confirm personal liberty outweighed “honour,” thus marking Rajasthan as a forerunner in protecting relational autonomyApplying for trademarks, copyrights, and patents is essential to protect intellectual property, but mistakes in the application process can significantly weaken legal protection. Errors such as inadequate research, incorrect documentation, missed deadlines, and improper classification often result in rejection or loss of rights. By understanding these common mistakes and taking preventive steps such as conducting proper searches, filing accurate applications, maintaining records, and responding promptly to official communications, applicants can avoid unnecessary legal issues. Careful planning and professional guidance ensure that intellectual property rights are effectively secured, allowing creators and businesses to focus on innovation, growth, and long-term success.
