President Droupadi Murmu has granted assent to the Gujarat Uniform Civil Code, which makes registration of live-in relationships mandatory, penalises non-registration of marriages and live-in relationships with fines or up to six months’ imprisonment, and applies to Gujarat residents inside and outside the State.
The Allahabad High Court has granted protection to a same-sex couple in a live-in relationship, holding that two consenting adults have a fundamental right under Article 21 to live together peacefully, irrespective of their sexual orientation or of social and family opposition. Relying on Navtej Singh Johar and Supriyo, the Court held that while legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a matter for the legislature, the absence of marital status gives no third party or authority the licence to attack the dignity or physical safety of adult citizens.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a notarized divorce agreement alone cannot legally dissolve a marriage. Dismissing a pension claim by a deceased government employee’s alleged second husband, the Court held that only a court-issued divorce decree can legally end a marriage.
The Bombay High Court dismissed Anita Advani’s appeal seeking legal recognition of her relationship with late actor Rajesh Khanna as a marriage. The Court upheld the earlier ruling and refused to grant her legal status as a wife under the law.
The Karnataka High Court quashed a bigamy case filed by wife against her 73-year-old husband and his live-in partner, concluding that their relationship could not attract the offence alleged. The Court remarked, “A mere live-in relationship does not amount to a marriage,”
The Allahabad High Court ruled that UP’s anti-conversion law does not prohibit interfaith marriages or live-in relationships between consenting adults. The Court said the right to live with a person of one’s choice, regardless of religion, is protected under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Jharkhand High Court held that concealing a prior live-in relationship before marriage amounts to fraud under the Hindu Marriage Act. While upholding annulment, the Court enhanced permanent alimony from Rs 30 lakh to Rs 50 lakh to secure the wife’s future.
Bombay High Court ruled that a woman knowingly involved with a married man cannot claim relief under the PWDVA. Such a liaison, the Court held, fails to meet the statutory definition of a relationship in the nature of marriage.
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.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that a married person cannot enter a live-in relationship without first obtaining a legal divorce. The court said personal liberty is not absolute, holding freedom ends where statutory rights of another person begin.
