In a short span of time, the Allahabad High Court has delivered two notable rulings that appear to reflect differing legal interpretations regarding live-in relationships involving individuals who are already married.
In the first case, decided on March 20 by a single bench led by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, the court adopted a stricter stance. It ruled that a person who is legally married and whose spouse is still alive cannot enter into a live-in relationship with another partner without first obtaining a divorce. The case involved a couple, both married to different people, who had approached the court seeking protection from alleged threats by their families while living together.
The state opposed their plea, arguing that the relationship was unlawful since neither party had legally dissolved their previous marriage. The court agreed with this position and denied protection, stating that while consenting adults have the right to live together, this freedom is not absolute. It emphasised that the legal rights of a spouse, including the right to companionship, cannot be overridden in the name of personal liberty. The bench also noted that granting protection in such circumstances could effectively shield an act that may fall under provisions related to bigamy. However, it clarified that if the couple faced any immediate threat or violence, they could still seek protection from law enforcement authorities.
In contrast, a few days later, a division bench comprising Justices J. J. Munir and Tarun Saxena took a more liberal view in a separate case. The bench held that a married man living in a consensual live-in relationship with an adult woman does not, by itself, constitute a criminal offence under the law. The case arose after the woman’s family filed a complaint alleging that she had been taken away, but she informed the police that she was living with the man of her own free will and feared harm from her relatives.
The division bench observed that legality and morality must be treated as separate considerations, and that courts should not impose social or moral judgments where no criminal offence is established. It also criticised apparent inaction by the police and directed authorities to ensure the safety of the couple. The court granted interim protection, instructing that no coercive steps be taken against them and restraining the woman’s family from interfering or causing harm.
These two rulings together highlight the evolving and somewhat unsettled legal landscape surrounding live-in relationships involving married individuals in India. While one judgment places greater emphasis on the legal sanctity of marriage and the rights of a spouse, the other underscores individual autonomy and the absence of explicit criminal provisions against consensual relationships between adults.
