MP High Court Protects Young Live-In Couple, Cautions Against Economic And Social Costs Of Early Life Choices

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while granting protection to a couple, aged 20 years, observed that although the Constitution confers certain individual rights, such as the right to reside per one's own will, it is not always necessary to exercise or enforce them in every circumstance. The bench of Justice Gajendra Singh highlighted the practical difficulties, noting that if the young adults choose to stay independently from their parents, they are compelled to earn a livelihood for themselves and their partners. This, the court cautioned, drastically affects the possibility of receiving an education and limits other life opportunities. The bench highlighted; "India is not a country where the State provides any allowance to the unemployed and the uneducated ones, thus, if you are not dependent on your parents, you have to earn your own and your partner's livelihood and this would naturally obviate possibility of going to a school or a college, and if you get into this struggle of life at an early age by choice, not only your chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life are drastically affected but your acceptance in the society is also reduced, and it is far more difficult for a girl who can also become pregnant at an early age, leading to further complications in her life".The petition was filed by a couple, both 20 years old, seeking police protection as they are residing together against the wishes of the girl's parents, who might take any untoward action.Their counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment of Nandakumar v State of Kerala, where the Apex Court held that adults, even if not competent to marry, have a right to live together outside of wedlock, and are entitled to be protected from any violence by their parents or any other person. The counsel for the State argued that since the boy was only 20 years of age, he lacked the legal capacity to marry. It was contended that no case for police protection was made out. It was further argued that granting protection in this case would not be in the larger interest of society, as it would promote 'promiscuousness'. The bench, referring to Nandakumar (supra), allowed the petition, affirming that the boy, despite being 20 years old, was an adult and entitled to reside as per their own will. This choice, the court held, must be safeguarded from external forces.Nevertheless, the court recorded concerns over the choices of youngsters. The bench emphasized that although certain rights have been granted by the Constitution, it was not necessary to enjoy and enforce them in every circumstance. For a young woman, the court pointed out the added risk of an early pregnancy leading to complications later in life. Therefore, the court advised caution and discretion when opting to enforce such rights, underlining that "it is one thing to have the rights and another to enforce them". The court, thus, directed; "With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands allowed, and respondents are directed to provide such protection to the petitioners as required. Counsel for the petitioner is also directed to apprise the petitioners about the concerns expressed by this court". Case Title: R v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-49301-2025]For Petitioners: Advocate Prashant SharmaFor State: Government Advocate Vinod ThakurClick here to read/download the Order

MP High Court Protects Young Live-In Couple, Cautions Against Economic And Social Costs Of Early Life Choices

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags