Allahabad High Court grants protection to live-in couples, reasserts Article 21 as overriding social disapproval

Rejection of the State’s objections

The Uttar Pradesh government opposed the petitions, arguing that live-in relationships are inherently unstable, likening them to contracts renewed daily and terminable at will, and raising concerns about the legal status of children born from such unions.

The court categorically rejected this line of reasoning, noting that constitutional rights cannot be denied based on speculative moral or sociological concerns. It observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 itself recognises and protects women in a “domestic relationship”, deliberately avoiding the narrower term “wife”.

Departure from earlier High Court precedent

Justice Singh also expressly declined to follow a 2023 Allahabad High Court ruling in Kiran Rawat v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where protection had been denied to a live-in couple on the ground that such relationships constituted a “social problem”.

The court held that the earlier decision was “not in consonance” with binding Supreme Court precedent, and that the facts of the present cases were materially different. Instead, the judgment aligned itself with a consistent line of Supreme Court authority recognising the autonomy of adults.

Reliance on Supreme Court jurisprudence

The High Court relied on landmark Supreme Court decisions including Lata Singh, S. Khushboo, Indra Sarma, and Shafin Jahan, all of which affirm that consenting adults are free to live together and cannot be restrained except by procedure established by law.

It also referred to Section 119(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 114 of the Evidence Act), which allows courts to presume marriage where a couple has lived together for a long period, a principle often applied to protect the rights of women and children arising from live-in relationships.

Directions to the police

The court directed that:

• If the couples face disturbance, they may approach the Police Commissioner / SSP / SP with a copy of the order.
• Police must provide immediate protection after satisfying themselves that the petitioners are adults and living together voluntarily.
• Age verification may be done through educational or other admissible documents; in their absence, ossification tests may be conducted.
• Police must refrain from initiating coercive action once voluntariness and majority are established.

Why this matters

The ruling reinforces a constitutional principle repeatedly articulated by higher courts: the right to life and liberty protects personal choice, not social conformity. At a time when live-in relationships continue to provoke moral and political debate, the judgment clarifies that State power cannot be used to enforce social approval, and that protection of life is not contingent on marital status.

By explicitly distancing itself from contrary High Court precedent and grounding its reasoning in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the judgment strengthens legal certainty for consenting adults seeking protection from familial or societal threats.