SHIVANI W/O SONU SINGH, D/O RAMRAJ, vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — CRLW/315/2026

Case under The Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: RJHC020186782026

e-Filing Number

20-02-2026

Filing Number

CRLW/7925/2026

Filing Date

20-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRLW/315/2026

Registration Date

21-Feb-2026

Judge

Uma Shanker Vyas

Coram

Uma Shanker Vyas

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Other Criminal matters ( 113 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

The Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHIVANI W/O SONU SINGH, D/O RAMRAJ,

    Adv. AMITABH VIJAYWARGIA

  2. 2.LALIT S/O RAMAVTAR GUPTA,

    Adv. AMITABH VIJAYWARGIA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  2. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

  3. 3.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

  4. 4.STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION JAMDOLI

  5. 5.SONU SINGH S/O JANAK SINGH,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Uma Shanker VyasView PDF

    The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by two persons seeking protection of life and personal liberty for their live-in relationship. The court held that since petitioner No. 1 was already married, a live-in relationship between a married and unmarried person is not legally permissible under Indian law, relying on Supreme Court precedent in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) and the High Court's earlier decision in Rashika Khandal case, which established that both parties must be unmarried to be entitled to such protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Feb-2026

    Bhuwan GoyalView PDF

  4. 20-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRLW/315/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by two persons seeking protection of life and personal liberty for their live-in relationship. The court held that since petitioner No. 1 was already married, a live-in relationship between a married and unmarried person is not legally permissible under Indian law, relying on Supreme Court precedent in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) and the High Court's earlier decision in Rashika Khandal case, which established that both parties must be unmarried to be entitled to such protection. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case