It is definitely a matter of great solace to note that none other than the Allahabad High Court which is the biggest High Court in not only just India, in not only just Asia but also in the whole world while ruling on a significant legal point pertaining to adults in a live-in relationship has in a most learned, logical, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Live In Couples v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors in Writ – C No. – 35171 of 2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:AHC:226669 that was reserved on 04.12.2025 and then finally pronounced on 17.12.2025 ordered police protection for 12 live-in couples who claimed that they faced serious threats from their families and had received inadequate security from the cops. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Kumar Singh heard all the petitions together and held in no uncertain terms most unequivocally underscoring that adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to protection of life and personal liberty. Very rightly so! It was also noted by the High Court that a large number of similar cases are now being filed, with couples stating that they had approached the district police but to no avail prompting them to move court. At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vivek Kumar Singh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, appeared as Amicus Curiae and assisted by Sri Subir Lal, Shri Sausthav Guha, Sri Dhanraj Singh Yadav, Sri Ajay Kumar and Sri Abhay Kumar Shukla, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Yogesh Kumar, Sri Pramit Kumar Pal and Sri Suresh Babu, learned Standing Counsels for the State of U.P., in all the writ petitions.” As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 2 disclosing that, “By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful life and also for a direction to provide protection.” While elaborating on the purpose behind the petitions, the Bench then observes in para 3 that, “A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein the petitioners have decided to stay together in a live-in relationship and they claimed that they have an apprehension of life threat from the private respondents and the Police of concerned Districts have been approached by them, but no heed was paid, therefore, they have approached this Court by way of filing these writ petitions. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed that the Police of their District be directed to provide protection from private respondents as well as other family members/relatives/associates of the private respondents from causing any harm to the petitioners.” Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 4 that, “Since controversy involved in all the writ petitions are similar, hence they are being decided by a common judgment.” Do note, the Bench notes in para 5 that, “This Court, taking note of the involvement of the important issue in the matter, requested Mr. Shwetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, to assist this Court, as amicus curiae, which was accepted by the learned Senior Counsel and he argued the matter with the assistance of learned counsels named above.” Do also note, the Bench then notes in para 15 that, “Marriage is a sacred relationship in India. Marriage has its legal consequences, entitles both the persons to cohabit, children born out of a legal wedlock have legitimacy as legal heirs, the wife is entitled to maintenance during and after the dissolution of marriage. To avoid these responsibilities and to enjoy the benefit of living together, the concept of living together has come into picture. Live-in relationship provides for a life free from responsibilities and commitment unlike in a marriage. In this relationship, an unmarried couple lives together under the same roof in a way it resembles a marriage, but without getting legally married.” As things stands, the Bench then states in para 16 that, “Live-in relationship is not socially accepted in our country. On the other hand, it is considered as taboo in India. The door for western ideas is always welcome in India and the concept of live-in relationship is one of such ideas. Live-in relationship is still facing social stigma and moral debate, especially regarding traditional values, children, differing religious/cultural perspectives. For some, it is immoral while others see it as a valid choice for compatibility.” While striking the right chord, the Bench observes in para 17 that, “In modern era, the concept of live-in relationship means a male and a female living together under a roof without marriage. This Court has been approached by live-in couples for protection from the private respondents, therefore, without going into the morality of the act of the petitioners, the Court has to see as to whether any illegal act has been committed by the petitioners and in this context, it has to be seen as to whether they are entitled to any relief.” While citing relevant, renowned and remarkable case law, the Bench pointed out in para 18 that, “Badri Prasad vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1978 SC 1557; (1978) 3 SCC 527, was the first case in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has recognized live-in relationship and interpreted it as a valid marriage. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave the legal validity to the 50 years old relationship of a couple. The Supreme Court held that the parties were in a live-in relationship for more than 50 years and their relationship would be considered as husband and wife, presuming the relationship was valid.” Do further note, the Bench notes in para 42 that, “In none of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the State counsels, the live-in relationship was criticized/deprecated or refused to protect the live-in partners. On the contrary, it was recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments discussed above. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments manifest that the Apex Court has consistently respected the liberty of an individual who has attained the age of majority. An individual on attaining majority is statutorily conferred a right to choose a partner, which if denied would not only affect his/her human rights but also his/her right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” It cannot be glossed over that the Bench observes in para 44 that, “Except the judgment of Kiran Rawat (supra), learned counsel for the State could not produce any judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein live-in relationship was deprecated or criticized or the protection was not granted to live-in partners. Even in the case of Kiran Rawat (supra), the Division Bench of this Court considered the legality and validity of interfaith couple, which is not the subject matter herein.” Truth be told, the Bench points out in para 45 that, “The concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of the marriage constitutes an offence. Even under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman who, is in a domestic relationship has been provided protection, maintenance etc. The word “wife” has not been used under the said Act.” Most significantly and most remarkably, the Bench encapsulates in para 46 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “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.” It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 47 that, “The petitioners herein, who are major, have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of the marriage and it is not for the Courts to judge them on their decision. If the petitioners herein have not committed any offence, this Court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to. Therefore, with due respect to the judgments rendered by the co-ordinate Benches, who have denied protection to couples, who were in a live-in relationship, this Court is unable to adopt the same view.” It would be instructive to note that the Bench hastens to add in para 48 noting that, “It is well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Lata Singh (supra), S. Khushboo (supra), Indra Sarma (supra) and Shafin Jahan (supra) and other judgments passed by various High Courts including ours, that the life and liberty of the individuals has to be protected, except according to procedure established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” Most forthrightly, the Bench points out in para 49 underscoring that, “In the opinion of the Court, a person, who has attained the age of majority as per Section 3 of the Majority Act, is able to understand his/her welfare and, therefore, he/she could not be restricted to go wherever he/she likes. He/she is free to live with anybody and could not be restrained from doing so.” It must be taken into account that the Bench then further points out in para 50 holding that, “Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act/Section 119(1) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, states that if couples live together for a significant amount of time as husband and wife, they will be presumed to be married. The Courts shall apply this presumption to protect the rights of the parties in a live-in relationship, i.e. women and the children born as a result thereof.” Most sagaciously, the Bench mandates in para 51 holding that, “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together peacefully and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. As right to life is a fundamental life ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution wherein it is provided that no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Most strikingly, the Bench directs and holds in para 52 that, “In case, any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP concerned with certified copy of this order and the Police Officer after being satisfied that the petitioners are major and willingly living together, will provide immediate protection to the petitioners. If the petitioners are educated and they produce their educational certificates and other certificates admissible under law, from which it is evident that they have attained the majority and they are living with their free will then no Police Officer shall take any coercive action against them unless an F.I.R. is registered against them in respect of any offence whatsoever. If they do not have any documentary proof regarding age and they come from rural background and or illiterate/semi-literate, the Police Officer can subject such boy or girl to ossification test to verify their correct age and he can also follow the other procedure permissible under the law.” As a corollary, the Bench then directs and holds in para 53 that, “Accordingly, aforesaid writ petitions are allowed.” Further, the Bench then clarifies in para 54 holding that, “No order as to cost.” It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench then notes in para 55 that, “Before parting with these cases, I would render my gratitude and appreciation for the invaluable assistance provided to the Court by Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, ably assisted by Sri Subir Lal and Sri Sausthav Guha, learned counsels for the petitioners.” Finally, the Bench then aptly concludes by acknowledging in para 56 holding that, “The hard work as well as arguments advanced by above named State counsels, are also appreciable.”
Sanjeev Sirohi