Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Rajasthan High Court, on Wednesday, heard an important issue- whether an already married person can be in a live-in relationship without dissolving their previous marriage. The court noted that while India is slowly opening its door to Western ideas like Live-In relationships, they are still considered immoral in society. 

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand acknowledged that “the concept of live-in-relationship is considered immoral by the society and the same is not accepted by public at large”. 

The court noted that even though the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments opined that “living together is a part of right to life and personal liberty, therefore, it cannot be held to be illegal and against any law”. 

It was observed that cohabitation formed an aspect of the right to life and personal liberty. It was also observed that a ‘live-in or marriage-like relationship’ neither constituted a crime nor a sin, despite being socially unacceptable in the country. The decision to marry, remain unmarried, or engage in a heterosexual relationship was deemed highly personal. 

The court noted that while single people desiring to stay in live-in relationships are granted protection by the courts, the same relief is not extended to couples who desire to stay in a live-in when their marriage with another subsists. In the case of Vakeela v State of Rajasthan and Aneeta v State of U.P. (Allahabad HC), it was opined that “no law-abiding citizen, who is already married under the Act of 1955, can seek protection of this Court if he/she is in illicit relationship, which is not within the purview of the social fabric of the society”. 

Additionally, the Allahabad High Court opined that “A live-in-relationship cannot be protected at the cost of the social fabric of this country. Directing the police to grant protection to such couples may amount to the Court indirectly giving its assent to such illicit relationships”. 

Consequently, following judicial decorum, the court referred the issue to a larger or special bench.  

Adjudicating the issue of the well-being of children born out of Live-In relationships, the court noted that the children as well as women are ‘sufferers’ in such relationships. Thus, the court opined that “moral obligation is required to be fastened upon the male partner of such 'live-in-relationship', who is required to discharge his moral duty to maintain the children born out of such relationship”. 

The court, therefore, directed formulation of a legal format making it necessary for couples to fill before entering in such ‘Live-In Relationships’: 
“(i) Fixing liability of the male and female partners in the form of child plan to bear the education, health and upbringing responsibility of the children born out of such relationship.
(ii) Fixing liability of the male partner for maintenance of the non-earning female partner residing in such relation and children born out of such relationship”. 

The court also directed the Chief Secretary of the Department of Law and Justice as well as the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Social Welfare to issue necessary orders to comply with the directions issued by the court. It also directed the departments to submit a compliance report before March 1, 2025. 

For Petitioners: Advocates Mahesh Jatwa, Parmeshwar Pilania, Ajit Singh, Anoop Kumar, Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Satish Kumar Balwada, Ankit Khandelwal, Sonal Gupta and Vichitar Choudhary
For Respondent: Government Advocate Rajesh Choudhary, Additional Advocate General Aman Kumar, and Additional Government Advocates Jitendra Singh with Deputy Government Advocates Vivek Choudhary and Manvendra Singh with Advocates Neha Goyal and Vinod Sharma
Case Title: Reena v State of Rajasthan (2025:RJ-JP:1930)