The Allahabad High Court recently delivered two contrasting rulings concerning live-in relationships that involve individuals who are already married. The initial ruling, issued on March 20 by a single bench led by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, asserted that a married individual cannot legally enter a live-in relationship with another person while their spouse is alive and unless a divorce is obtained. This judgment arose in response to a petition filed by a couple, each married to different partners, who sought legal protection from alleged threats posed by their families. They claimed that they were cohabiting as a married couple and feared for their safety. However, the state contested their plea, pointing out that their relationship was illegal as neither party had finalized a divorce. Consequently, the court upheld the state’s argument and denied the request for protection, stating that, although consenting adults have the right to live together free from interference, this right is not absolute. The ruling emphasized that personal liberty cannot infringe upon the statutory rights of a legally wed spouse. The bench stressed that a spouse has an enforceable legal right to their partner’s company, which cannot be compromised under personal freedoms. It further noted that granting such protection could risk endorsing bigamous relations. The court concluded that, given the circumstances, it could not provide a writ for protection, although it advised that the couple could seek police aid if faced with violence.

Liberal Interpretation Days Later

Shortly following the earlier judgment, a division bench comprising Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena offered a more lenient perspective on live-in relationships. This ruling was in a different case involving a married man and an 18-year-old woman. The judges held that a consensual live-in arrangement between a married man and an adult woman does not constitute a criminal offence. The bench remarked that living together with mutual consent should remain distinct from legal and moral systems. The legal matter arose when the woman’s family lodged an FIR, alleging that she had been abducted. Nevertheless, the woman informed the police that she was living with the man by her own choice and expressed concerns for her safety due to threats from her relatives. The court highlighted the apparent inaction by the police and underscored the obligation of law enforcement to safeguard consenting adults. It granted interim protection to the couple, ordering that no coercive actions be taken against them. The court also instructed the woman’s family to refrain from contacting or threatening them and held the local Superintendent of Police accountable for ensuring their safety. Furthermore, the bench declared that societal morals should not govern judicial decisions when no legal violation is apparent.

Emerging Legal Landscape for Live-In Relationships

The two rulings underscore the complexity of legal interpretations surrounding live-in relationships involving individuals who are married. The initial decision emphasized the legal framework safeguarding marriage and the associated rights of spouses, while the subsequent ruling highlighted individual autonomy and the absence of explicit legal prohibitions on consensual living arrangements among adults. These contrasting judgments spotlight the ongoing evolution of legal perspectives regarding personal relationships in India’s judicial system, reflecting a tension between traditional marriage norms and contemporary views on individual rights.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share