Live-In During Valid Marriage Violates Spouse’s Rights: Allahabad High Court Denies Protection To Couple

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to grant police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship, holding that such relief could not be extended as the woman was already married and had not obtained a divorce from her husband.

Court was hearing a writ petition filed by two individuals who sought a direction to the authorities to ensure that they are not harassed and to provide them protection from alleged threats by private respondents. The petitioners claimed that they were living together as husband and wife and feared for their safety.

At the outset, the state opposed the plea, pointing out that woman (petitioner no. 1) was already married and her marriage was still subsisting in the eyes of law. It was submitted that she had not obtained a decree of divorce from a competent court and therefore could not legally enter into another relationship resembling marriage.

Accepting this submission, court underscored that while the law recognises the autonomy of consenting adults to choose their partners, such autonomy operates within the framework of statutory restrictions. It observed that personal liberty cannot be invoked to defeat the legal rights arising out of an existing marriage.

The bench noted that a spouse has a legally protected right to the companionship of their partner, and permitting a person to enter into a live-in relationship during the subsistence of a valid marriage would directly infringe this right. It held that such a course cannot be endorsed under the guise of protecting personal liberty.

"The Right to Freedom or Right to Personal Liberty is not an absolute or unfettered right, it is qualified by some restrictions also. The freedom of one person extincts where the statutory right of another person starts. A spouse has statutory right to enjoy the company of his or her counterpart and he/she cannot be deprived of that right for the sake of personal liberty and no such protection can be granted to infringe statutory right of the other spouse, hence, the freedom of one person cannot encroach or outweigh the legal right of another person," the single judge bench said.

Court further clarified that for a relationship to qualify as one “in the nature of marriage”, both individuals must be legally capable of entering into a valid marriage. This necessarily requires that neither party is already married. In the present case, since the woman’s earlier marriage had not been dissolved, the relationship claimed by the petitioners could not be recognised as legally valid.

"If the petitioners are already married and have their spouse alive, he/she cannot be legally permitted to enter into live-in relationship with a third person without seeking divorce from the earlier spouse. He/she first has to obtain the decree of divorce from the court of competent jurisdiction before solemnizing marriage or entering into living in a relationship out of their legal marriage," court said.

It also took note of the absence of any material to substantiate that the petitioners were living in a stable, marriage-like arrangement. No documents were produced to show joint financial arrangements, shared property, or other such indicators.

Importantly, court held that granting protection in such circumstances could effectively amount to protecting conduct that may attract penal consequences. It referred to the legal position that any second marriage during the lifetime of a spouse constitutes an offence of bigamy under the Indian Penal Code [Section 82(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita].

On the issue of maintainability, court reiterated that a writ of mandamus can only be issued when a petitioner demonstrates a subsisting legal right. In the present case, it held that no such enforceable right existed, as the relationship itself was contrary to law.

In view of these findings, court declined to issue any direction for police protection to the petitioners.

However, it clarified that if the petitioners face any real threat or are subjected to violence, they are at liberty to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police with a representation.

Notably, on March 25, 2026, a division bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena of the high court took a more permissive view in a similar matter. The division bench held that a married man living with an adult woman in a consensual live-in relationship does not commit any offence under the law. In that case, court granted protection from arrest to a couple facing criminal proceedings and alleged threats from the woman’s family.

Significantly, the division bench observed, "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 for protecting the rights of citizens".

These two decisions of the same high court reflect differing judicial approaches on whether personal liberty can be extended to relationships that intersect with existing marital ties.

Case Title: Anu And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Order Date: March 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh