Allahabad High Court rules that live-in relationships between consenting adults are not illegal and deserve constitutional protection. Reaffirming Article 21, the Court directs police protection, rejects social morality arguments, and upholds personal liberty.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: In a landmark and detailed judgment, the Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that live-in relationships between consenting adults are not illegal and that such couples are entitled to protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Deciding a batch of writ petitions involving couples in live-in relationships seeking police protection, the Court held that social morality cannot override constitutional morality, and the State is duty-bound to protect life and liberty, irrespective of marital status.
Issue Before the Court
The principal question before the Court was:
Whether adult couples living in a live-in relationship are entitled to police protection against threats from family members or others?
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities not to interfere in their peaceful lives and to provide protection against alleged threats.
Background of the Case
Several writ petitions were filed before the Allahabad High Court by adult couples living in live-in relationships, who apprehended threats to their life and liberty from family members and other private individuals. Despite approaching the local police authorities, no protection was allegedly provided, compelling the petitioners to seek relief from the High Court.
As all the petitions involved similar facts and legal issues, they were heard and decided together by a common judgment. Considering the significance of the constitutional questions involved, the Court appointed Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter.
Court’s Observation
Live-In Relationships
The Court made it clear that while live-in relationships may not be socially accepted in many parts of India, they are not prohibited by law.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed:
“The concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence.”
The Court emphasized the distinction between law and morality, stating that personal choices cannot be criminalised merely because they offend social sensibilities.
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
The judgment strongly relies on Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The Court held:
“Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major, married or unmarried.”
It further clarified that marriage is not a precondition for constitutional protection.
The Allahabad High Court relied extensively on binding precedents of the Supreme Court of India, including:
1. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)
The Court quoted:
“Morality and Criminality are not co-extensive.”
And reaffirmed that:
“There is no statutory offence that takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting.”
2. Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006)
The Supreme Court held:
“A major girl is free to marry anyone she likes or ‘live with anyone she likes’.”
3. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018)
The judgment noted:
“Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock, they have right to live together even outside the wedlock.”
4. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)
Recognising live-in relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Supreme Court observed the need for protection of women and children born from such relationships.
5. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018)
The Apex Court ruled:
“Expression of choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”
And warned that:
“Curtailment of that expression on the basis of societal morality would destroy the individualistic entity of a person.”
The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that granting protection to live-in couples would:
- Undermine social fabric
- Impose an unreasonable burden on the police
- Encourage non-marital cohabitation
The Court firmly rejected these submissions, stating:
“The Constitution does not permit denial of fundamental rights merely because a choice is socially unacceptable.”
It further clarified that police protection is not an endorsement of a relationship, but a constitutional obligation.
The Court referred to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 119 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), observing:
“If couples live together for a significant amount of time as husband and wife, they will be presumed to be married.”
This presumption exists to protect women and children, not to punish couples.
Directions of the Court
The Allahabad High Court issued the following directions:
- Adult live-in couples have the right to live together peacefully
- No person, including family members, may interfere
- Police authorities must protect if a threat exists
- No coercive action shall be taken unless a cognizable offence is registered
- Police may verify age through documents or ossification test if required
The Court concluded:
“Being sacrosanct, the fundamental right under Article 21 must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of marriage or even the absence of any marriage.”
Case Title:
Akanksha And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
WRIT – C No. – 35171 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Live-In Relationships
