Live-in relationships not illegal, state must protect couples: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has delivered a firm rebuke to moral policing, ruling that live-in relationships are not illegal and that the State is constitutionally bound to protect the life and liberty of consenting adults, irrespective of their marital status.

Hearing a batch of 12 petitions filed by women in live-in relationships, the court directed district police chiefs to provide immediate protection if the petitioners’ peaceful cohabitation is disturbed by anyone — including family members, relatives or associates.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, passing a common order, observed that while live-in relationships may not find universal social acceptance, they do not amount to an offence.

“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 said.

State duty cannot hinge on social approval

The petitioners told the court that despite approaching local police with apprehensions of threat to their lives, no protection was extended, forcing them to seek judicial intervention.

Rejecting the State’s argument that protecting unmarried couples would undermine India’s “social fabric”, the court made it clear that constitutional rights are not subject to societal approval.

“Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his or her partner, it is not for any other person — be it a family member — to object and cause hindrance to their peaceful existence,” the court ruled.

The bench underlined that the State’s obligation to protect citizens flows from the Constitution, not from personal beliefs or cultural discomfort.

“The mere fact that the petitioners have not solemnised marriage would not deprive them of their fundamental rights,” the court added.

Court rejects argument that couples must marry first

During the hearing, government counsel argued that live-in relationships have no legal status, could be terminated at will, and create social and legal complications — insisting that couples should marry before seeking protection.

The court dismissed this contention, noting that personal choices cannot be policed through denial of safety.

It also pointed out that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, women in domestic relationships — not limited to wives — are already granted legal safeguards, including protection and maintenance.

Earlier HC ruling distinguished

The State had relied on an April 28, 2023, Allahabad High Court judgment that denied protection to live-in couples. The court, however, clarified that the earlier ruling did not lay down a blanket bar and was not in consonance with Supreme Court precedents.

“This court sees no reason why the prayer for protection cannot be acceded to when no offence has been committed,” Justice Singh observed.

Clear police directions issued

The court directed that if any disturbance occurs, the petitioners may approach the Commissioner of Police, SSP or SP with a certified copy of the order. Upon verifying that the individuals are majors and cohabiting voluntarily, police must extend immediate protection.

It further instructed that:

• No coercive action shall be taken against educated petitioners who can produce proof of age.
• In cases involving rural or illiterate individuals without documents, police may conduct ossification tests strictly in accordance with law.

“The petitioners are at liberty to live together peacefully, and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living,” the court concluded.

The ruling reinforces a growing judicial consensus that adult autonomy and personal liberty cannot be overridden by social stigma, and that the State’s duty to protect citizens applies equally — married or not.