Recently, the Allahabad High Court was called upon to examine a growing cluster of writ petitions filed by consenting adults living together in live-in relationships, who approached the Court seeking protection of their life and personal liberty. The Petitions raised important constitutional questions touching upon individual autonomy, societal morality, and the State’s obligation to safeguard fundamental rights when personal choices attract opposition from family members or others.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from multiple writ petitions filed by adult couples who had chosen to cohabit without solemnising marriage. The Petitioners asserted that their decision to live together had triggered hostility and threats from family members and private individuals. Apprehending danger to their lives and liberty, they approached local police authorities seeking protection, but alleged that no effective action was taken. Consequently, they invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for directions restraining interference in their peaceful living and for police protection. Given that all Petitions involved identical legal and factual issues, the Court heard them together and proceeded to decide them through a common judgment
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the Petitioners contended that live-in relationships between consenting adults are not prohibited under Indian law and fall within the protective ambit of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The counsel argued that the right to choose a partner and the manner of living are intrinsic facets of personal liberty and individual autonomy. The Petitioners emphasized that they were majors, capable of making informed choices about their lives, and that no law criminalises cohabitation outside marriage. The Petitioner submitted that societal disapproval or moral objections cannot override constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Relying on judicial precedents, the petitioners argued that courts have consistently recognised that live-in relationships, though socially contested, are not illegal. It was asserted that the State has a positive obligation to protect life and liberty irrespective of marital status, especially when credible apprehensions of harm are raised.
Contentions of the State:
The State opposed the petitions by asserting that live-in relationships do not enjoy the same legal or social status as marriage and are inconsistent with the traditional social fabric of Indian society. It was argued that marriage entails legal duties and social responsibilities, whereas live-in relationships are informal arrangements that can be terminated at will, lacking legal certainty. The State further contended that granting protection in such cases would amount to compelling the police machinery to supervise and endorse personal arrangements that have no statutory recognition. According to the State, police protection can be directed only where there is a real, immediate, and demonstrable threat, not on the basis of vague or speculative apprehensions. It was also submitted that the Constitution does not mandate anticipatory or blanket protection for non-marital cohabitation, and that courts should refrain from expanding State obligations in such matters.
Observation of the Court:
The Court made detailed constitutional and jurisprudential observations on the legality of live-in relationships, personal liberty, and the State’s duty to protect life, while consciously distancing itself from moral adjudication. The Court highlighted that morality and legality cannot be conflated, and personal choices of adults cannot be curtailed merely because they are socially disfavoured that“There is a difference between the law and morality. Live-in relationship is not prohibited by any law. According to law, a live-in relationship cannot be said illegal, however, some people may call it immoral.”
Emphasising the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty, the Court observed that once an individual attains majority, their autonomy in choosing a partner or mode of living is protected under Article 21“An individual on attaining majority is statutorily conferred a right to choose a partner, which if denied would not only affect his/her human rights but also his/her right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court clearly held that absence of marriage does not dilute the right to protection, noting that the Constitution places life and liberty on a higher pedestal than social institutions. “Mere fact that the petitioners have not solemnized marriage, would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution of India… Being sacrosanct, under the Constitutional scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.”
Rejecting the argument that the State can deny protection on grounds of social disapproval, the Court reaffirmed the State’s positive obligation to safeguard citizens. “It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen.”
The Court further clarified that judicial forums cannot substitute societal norms for constitutional freedoms“The petitioners herein, who are major, have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of the marriage and it is not for the Courts to judge them on their decision.”
Finally, addressing the recurring nature of such petitions, the Court reiterated that personal liberty cannot be made contingent upon societal approval “Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence
The decision of the Court:
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that adult live-in partners cannot be denied protection merely because they are not married. It directed the police authorities to safeguard the life and personal liberty of the petitioners after verifying that they are majors and residing together voluntarily. The Court clarified that no coercive action shall be taken against them unless they are involved in any offence. No order as to costs was made.
Case Title: ABC V. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Case No.: Writ - C No. - 35171 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Ms Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Rajeev Kumar Saxena
Counsel for the State: C.S.C.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
