The Allahabad High Court has observed that a live-in relationship cannot be called illegal, nor is living together without the sanctity of marriage an offence. It also said the State is duty-bound to protect every citizen, and a couple’s unmarried status does not deprive them of their fundamental rights.
Hearing 12 petitions filed by women in live-in relationships who sought protection as they feared a threat to their lives, the court ordered the police chiefs of the districts concerned to provide immediate protection if someone disturbs their peaceful living.
While issuing the direction on Wednesday, the single bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed, “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 the marriage constitutes an offence.”
The petitioners claimed they approached police in the districts concerned, but no attention was paid to them. In all the writ petitions — which the court clubbed — the petitioners prayed that the police be directed to provide protection from people, including family members, relatives or associates, from causing any harm.
The court stated, “Since the controversy involved in all the writ petitions is similar, they are being decided by a common judgment.”
The order referred to the argument of the government counsel, who stated, “Live-in relationships cannot be accepted at the cost of our country’s social fabric. These parties are not bound by any law, and either of the partners can walk out of the said relationship as and when they like… It is a contract… renewed every day by the parties and can be terminated by either of the parties without the consent of the other party… There is no legal status of such a relationship, the legal status of the children born out of such a relationship would not be determined, and it will create a lot of complications in the life of live-in partners. Therefore, before seeking any relief from the court, they should marry first.”
The government counsel further submitted that if the petitions are allowed, it would impose an impermissible obligation upon the State to supervise, affirm and protect personal choices of the petitioners.
Story continues below this ad
While protection may be granted to couples who have solemnised marriage against the wishes of their parents and relatives, no protection can be granted to unmarried couples, the government counsel argued, adding that the police cannot be compelled to serve as personal security for non-marital cohabitation.
While observing that live-in relationships are not socially accepted in the country and are even considered taboo, the court said, “The door for Western ideas is always welcome in India, and the concept of live-in relationship is one… such idea. Live-in relationships are still facing social stigma and moral debate, especially regarding traditional values, children, and differing religious/cultural perspectives. For some, it is immoral, while others see it as a valid choice for compatibility.”
The court order stated that during arguments, the government counsel referred to a judgment by a division bench of the Allahabad HC on April 28, 2023, where the court refused to provide protection to couples in a live-in relationship.
However, the present order stated, “It is apparent that the court has not held that all couples residing in a live-in relationship are not entitled to protection of the Court. The judgment was not passed in consonance with the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the facts of the present cases are entirely different.”
Story continues below this ad
The court also observed, “Even under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman who is in a domestic relationship has been provided protection, maintenance, etc. The word ‘wife’ has not been used under the said Act. 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. It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations cast upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. The mere fact that the petitioners have not solemnised marriage would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution of India, being citizens of India.”
The court further observed, “The petitioners herein, who are major, have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage, and it is not for the courts to judge them on their decision. If the petitioners… have not committed any offence, this court sees no reason why their prayer for the grant of protection cannot be acceded to. Therefore, with due respect to the judgments rendered by the coordinate benches, who have denied protection to couples who were in a live-in relationship, this court is unable to adopt the same view.”
“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together peacefully and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living,” it said.
The court said that in case any disturbance is caused “in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP concerned with a certified copy of this order… (and) the police officer, after being satisfied that the petitioners are majors and willingly living together, will provide immediate protection…”
Story continues below this ad
“If the petitioners are educated and they produce educational certificates and other certificates admissible under law, from which it is evident that they have attained majority… then no police officer shall take any coercive action against them unless an FIR is registered against them in respect of any offence whatsoever…,” it said.
“If they do not have any documentary proof regarding age and they come from a rural background and or are illiterate/semi-literate, the police officer can subject such a boy or girl to an ossification test to verify their correct age and… follow other procedures permissible under the law,” the court ordered, while issuing directions to the officers.
