The Allahabad High Court has held that constitutional protection under Article 21 cannot be invoked to legitimise or indirectly facilitate a live-in relationship that operates as a substitute for a marriage prohibited under statutory law. Justice Garima Prashad ruled that where a male partner has not attained 21 years of age and is treated as a “child” under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the Court cannot grant protection in a manner that circumvents legislative restrictions governing marriageable age.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a Muslim woman aged 20 years and a 19-year-old Hindu Scheduled Caste male, who claimed to be living together in a live-in relationship. The couple sought police protection alleging interference and threats from the woman’s father. The petitioners argued that both were majors under the law and therefore entitled to live together by choice, despite being unable to solemnise marriage under the Special Marriage Act because the male partner had not attained 21 years of age.
Opposing the plea, the State contended that the statutory framework under the Special Marriage Act, Hindu Marriage Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act clearly treats a male below 21 years as lacking legal capacity to marry. It was argued that the Court should not indirectly approve a marriage-like relationship through judicial protection when the legislature itself prohibits such unions.
The Court extensively analysed the scheme of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, observing that Parliament intended not merely to regulate but actively prevent child marriages through penal consequences and preventive mechanisms. Justice Prashad held that a live-in relationship adopted as an alternative to marriage, when marriage itself is legally impermissible, cannot receive judicial sanction.
Reliance was placed upon decisions including Independent Thought v. Union of India, Lata Singh v. State of U.P., Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma. The Court clarified that while adults are entitled to protection from violence or illegal detention, courts cannot dilute statutory restrictions relating to marital capacity.
Finding the allegations vague and unsupported by specific incidents, the Court dismissed the writ petition while observing that the petitioners remain free to approach authorities in case of any unlawful threats or coercion.
Case Details:
Case: WRIT - C No. 469 of 2026
Bench: Justice Garima Prashad
Petitioners: Shajiya Parveen and Another
Respondents: State of U.P. and 3 Others
Picture Source :
