The Allahabad High Court has held that consenting adults living together in a live-in relationship are entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty, regardless of whether their relationship conforms
to social notions of morality or marriage.
The single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh also declined to follow a high court division bench ruling in Kiran Rawat v State of UP (2023), which had refused protection to a live-in couple, holding that the judgment did not lay down a blanket bar on granting protection and turned on materially different facts relating to an interfaith relationship.
“With due respect to the judgments rendered by the co-ordinate Benches, who have denied protection to couples who were in a live-in relationship, this Court is unable to adopt the same view,” the single-judge bench held.
Allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by several live-in couples, the court ruled that the Constitution does not permit interference with personal choice once the individuals involved have attained majority.
The petitions were filed by couples who stated that they had decided to cohabit without marriage and were facing opposition and threats from family members and private respondents. They also alleged that despite approaching local police authorities, no effective steps were taken to protect them, forcing them to invoke the high court’s jurisdiction under Article 226. Given that similar grievances were raised across multiple petitions, the court decided all matters through a common judgment.
Justice Singh noted that the issue raised was not merely factual but touched upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
To assist the court, Senior Advocate Shwetashwa Agarwal was appointed as amicus curiae. The amicus argued that live-in relationships are not prohibited by law and that the right to choose whether to marry or cohabit flows from the right to life and personal liberty. According to him, while such relationships may be viewed as immoral by some sections of society, morality and legality are distinct concepts, and the latter must prevail in constitutional adjudication.
The state of Uttar Pradesh, however, opposed the grant of blanket protection. The state argued that live-in relationships cannot be equated with marriage, that they do not impose reciprocal legal obligations, and that granting police protection in such cases would amount to the state endorsing private personal arrangements.
It was further contended that protection should be extended only when there is a real and immediate threat, and not on vague or speculative apprehensions.
Rejecting the state’s objections, the court undertook a detailed review of Supreme Court judgments, including decisions in Lata Singh, S Khushboo, Nandakumar, Indra Sarma and Shafin Jahan.
The court observed that the apex court has consistently recognised the autonomy of adults to choose their partner and the manner in which they wish to live, subject only to the limits imposed by law. It emphasised that the Constitution protects individual liberty even when personal choices are socially unpopular or disapproved.
Justice Singh observed that marriage may be a socially and legally significant institution in India, but the absence of marriage cannot be a ground to deny constitutional protection.
The court held that once individuals are majors and are living together of their own free will, no person, including family members, has the authority to interfere in their peaceful existence. The duty of the state, the court said, is to protect life and liberty, not to enforce societal morality.
The judgment also addressed concerns regarding the misuse of police protection. It clarified that the order would not shield petitioners from legal action if any offence is committed. Police authorities were directed to verify the age and willingness of the parties and to provide protection only if there is a disturbance or credible threat to their life and liberty. In cases where documentary proof of age is unavailable, police were permitted to follow lawful procedures, including medical age determination.
