Article 21 Prevails Over Marital Status: Allahabad HC Grants Protection to Live-in Couples

The Allahabad High Court has held that consenting adults who choose to live together in a live-in relationship are entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that the mere absence of a formal marriage cannot be a ground for denying police protection when such couples face threats or interference.

The Court ruled that once individuals have attained majority and are living together by choice, no person including family members or the State authorities can interfere in their peaceful existence, and the constitutional obligation of the State to protect life and liberty applies irrespective of the marital status of the individuals concerned.

The judgment was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, in a batch of connected writ petitions led by Writ-C No. 35171 of 2025. The petitions were heard together as they raised identical issues concerning police protection sought by live-in couples apprehending threat to their life and liberty from private respondents and family members.

"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 casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major, married or unmarried. 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 citizens of India. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Constitutional's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. 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", Court elaborately observed.

While examining the issue, the Court undertook an extensive analysis of the legal position governing live-in relationships; It noted that although live-in relationships may not enjoy widespread social acceptance, they are not prohibited by law and cannot be treated as illegal or unlawful. The Court emphasised that the distinction between morality and legality is well settled, and personal choices relating to cohabitation fall within the ambit of personal liberty guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that the right to choose a partner and the right to cohabit without marriage are integral facets of individual autonomy, and such choices cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of social disapproval.

Reliance was placed upon a long line of precedents of the Top Court and various High Courts which have consistently recognised the legitimacy of live-in relationships and the duty of the State to protect consenting adults.

The Court referred to Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, where a long-standing live-in relationship was presumed to be a valid marriage, and Payal Sharma v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, where it was held that a man and woman can live together without marriage and such cohabitation, though considered immoral by some, is not illegal.

The judgment also relied upon Tulsa v. Durghatiya, S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., among others, to reaffirm that the liberty of consenting adults cannot be sacrificed at the altar of societal morality.

The Court further noted that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 recognises domestic relationships in the nature of marriage and provides statutory protection to women in such relationships, thereby reflecting legislative acknowledgement of live-in arrangements.

It also referred to the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, now reflected under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which allows courts to presume marriage where a couple has lived together for a significant period, particularly to safeguard the rights of women and children born out of such relationships.

The petitioners contended that they were majors and were living together by choice in a live-in relationship, and that they were facing threats from family members and private respondents who were opposed to their relationship. It was argued that repeated representations to the local police had not yielded any protection, thereby compelling them to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for enforcement of their fundamental rights.

The counsel appearing for the petitioners and the Amicus Curiae submitted that denial of protection in such cases would amount to abdication of the State’s constitutional duty under Article 21.

The State, on the other hand, opposed the petitions by contending that live-in relationships are contrary to the social fabric of Indian society and lack legal sanctity. It was argued that granting police protection to non-marital couples would impose an impermissible obligation upon the State to endorse and supervise private personal arrangements.

The State further submitted that police protection should be granted only where there exists a real and immediate threat, and that vague or speculative apprehensions cannot justify judicial directions for protection.

Reliance was placed on several Top Court decisions, including Indra Sarma, to emphasise the absence of statutory recognition of live-in relationships as equivalent to marriage.

Rejecting the State’s objections, the Court held that none of the judgments cited by the State laid down a proposition that live-in couples are disentitled to protection of life and liberty. The Court distinguished earlier decisions where protection was denied on facts, and clarified that constitutional courts cannot refuse protection solely on the basis of marital status when no offence is disclosed.

It reiterated that the right to life and personal liberty occupies a higher pedestal in the constitutional scheme and must be protected irrespective of whether the individuals are married or unmarried.

The Court concluded that all the petitioners, being majors and residing together voluntarily, are entitled to live peacefully without interference. It directed that if any disturbance is caused to their peaceful living, the petitioners may approach the Commissioner of Police or the concerned SSP or SP with a certified copy of the order, whereupon the police authorities shall verify their age and consent and provide immediate protection.

The Court clarified that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners unless an FIR is registered in respect of any cognisable offence, and permitted age verification through documentary proof or ossification test where necessary.

Counsels Appearing: Rajeev Kumar Saxena, Adv. for the petitioner and CSC for the State

Case Title: Akanksha and Anr. v. State of UP and 3 ors. along with 12 connected writ petitions

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh

Date of Judgment: 17.12.2025