The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a married man living in a consensual live-in relationship with an adult woman does not commit any legal offence, underscoring that legal principles must remain distinct from societal notions of morality.
While hearing a petition filed by a couple seeking protection from threats issued by the woman’s family, the court observed that when two consenting adults choose to live together, their relationship cannot be treated as a criminal act, regardless of the man’s marital status. The bench emphasised that courts are bound to uphold individual rights under the law and cannot allow social or moral judgments to influence legal protection.
The judges stated that if no specific offence is defined under the law, then personal opinions or societal disapproval cannot become grounds to deny protection. They made it clear that morality and legality operate in separate domains, and the court’s responsibility is to ensure that citizens’ rights are safeguarded in accordance with the law.
The court also took note of the woman’s statement submitted to the Superintendent of Police, in which she confirmed that she was living with the man out of her own free will. Despite this, she alleged that no action had been taken by the authorities even after she reported serious threats from her family, including fears of honour-based violence.
Expressing concern over the apparent inaction, the court reiterated that it is the duty of the police to ensure the safety of two consenting adults living together. It stressed that senior officials, particularly the Superintendent of Police, carry a specific responsibility in such cases, as established in prior rulings of the Supreme Court.
The High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to respond to the matter and ordered immediate protection for the couple. It also held the Superintendent of Police personally accountable for ensuring their safety and preventing any harm.
In addition, the court granted interim relief in a related criminal case by directing that the couple should not be arrested in connection with a kidnapping complaint filed against them. The woman’s family has also been restrained from interfering in their lives, including making any form of contact or attempting to approach their residence.
The case has been scheduled for further hearing, while the court’s directions aim to ensure that the couple’s safety and legal rights are upheld without interference from external pressures.
