Live-In With Married Man Not Illegal: Allahabad High Court Draws Line Between Law and Morality

A married man living with an adult woman in a consensual live-in relationship does not commit any offence under the law, the Allahabad High Court recently observed while granting protection from arrest to a couple facing criminal proceedings and alleged threats from the woman’s family.

The division bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena was dealing with a plea filed by a couple, who are living together and had approached the court seeking protection against police action and interference by family members.

The case drew attention to the marital status of the second petitioner (the man), which was strongly pressed by the opposing side to argue that the relationship itself was unlawful.

Appearing for the caveator, counsel contended that since the man is already married, his decision to live with another woman should attract criminal consequences.

The bench, however, rejected this line of reasoning, making it clear that the law does not recognise such a relationship as an offence merely because one of the partners is married. It held that where an adult woman chooses to stay in a live-in relationship of her own free will, the man’s marital status, by itself, does not give rise to any prosecutable offence.

Court drew a sharp distinction between legal culpability and societal morality.

It observed that courts cannot be guided by moral perceptions or social disapproval when the statute does not criminalise a particular act.

“Morality and law have to be kept apart,” the bench noted, underlining that personal choices of consenting adults fall within the domain of individual liberty and cannot be curtailed on subjective notions of right and wrong.

As per the facts of the case, the woman is 18 years old, a position also acknowledged in the FIR lodged by her mother, though the FIR alleged that she had been taken away by inducement.

The petitioners placed on record a complaint made by the woman to the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, stating that she was residing with the second petitioner of her own volition. She also alleged that her family members were opposed to the relationship and had issued threats, raising apprehensions of honour killing.

Court noted that despite such allegations, no action had been taken by the police authorities.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), the bench reiterated that the police have a positive obligation to protect couples who face threats due to familial or societal opposition, including in cases involving inter-personal relationships that may not be socially accepted.

Finding a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, court issued notice and granted time to the respondents to file their replies.

As an interim measure, court directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with the case registered against them.

It further restrained the woman’s family members from causing any harm to the couple or contacting them, directly or indirectly.

The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, was directed to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners and was made personally responsible for compliance. Court also directed that the order be communicated to the concerned authorities within 24 hours.

Case Title: Anamika and another vs. State of U.P. and others

Order Date: March 25, 2026

Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena