Allahabad HC Split on Married Live-in Relationships
Contrasting rulings highlight legal vs morality debate in live-in cases
- Allahabad High Court delivers two differing rulings within days
- Single judge denies protection to married live-in couple without divorce
- Division bench says such relationship is not a criminal offence
- Court stresses separation of law from social morality
GG News Bureau
Prayagraj,29th March: The Allahabad High Court has delivered two contrasting rulings within days on the issue of married individuals entering live-in relationships, reigniting debate on the intersection of law, morality and personal liberty.
In an order dated March 20, a single-judge bench led by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh refused to grant protection to a live-in couple, observing that a married person cannot legally enter such a relationship without first obtaining a divorce from their spouse.
The court held that personal liberty is not absolute and cannot override the statutory rights of a legally wedded spouse. “The freedom of one person ceases where the statutory right of another person starts,” the court observed, adding that a spouse has the legal right to companionship which cannot be infringed in the name of individual freedom.
The bench further stated that it cannot issue a writ under Article 226 to protect a relationship that conflicts with existing legal provisions. However, it clarified that the couple could approach the police if they face threats or violence.
In contrast, on March 25, a division bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena took a different view while hearing another petition involving a married man in a consensual live-in relationship with an adult woman.
The bench observed that such a relationship does not constitute a criminal offence under the law. “Morality and law have to be kept apart. If there is no offence under the law made out, social opinions and morality will not guide the action of the Court,” it said.
The court also directed police protection for the couple after the woman alleged threats from her family and expressed fear of honour killing. It noted that authorities are duty-bound to ensure safety of consenting adults, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shakti Vahini v. Union of India case.
Additionally, the court restrained the woman’s family from contacting or approaching the couple and made the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, responsible for their safety.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on April 8.
The divergent observations from the same court have sparked fresh discussion on the evolving legal framework around live-in relationships and the balance between individual rights and marital obligations.
