'Live-In Relations Not Illegal; State Bound To Protect Couples': Allahabad HC Single Judge Disapproves Of DB Order Deploring Such Ties

"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", the Court remarked.

With these observations, a bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh ALLOWED a batch of writ petitions filed by couples in live-in relationships seeking police protection. The Court was of the view that the State cannot refuse to protect the life and liberty of consenting adults.

This order is significant because, in this case, the Single Judge expressly disapproved of a 2023 Division Bench order of the HC in Kiran Rawat and Another v. State of U.P., 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 201, which had characterised such relationships as a "social problem".

For context, in the Kiran Rawat case (2023), a division bench had observed that the views expressed by the Supreme Court pertaining to 'live-in' relationships "cannot be considered to promote such relationships"

Observing that traditionally, Law has been biased in favour of marriage, the HC had stressed upon the need to create awareness in young minds regarding the emotional and societal pressures and legal hassles which may be created by such relations.

More about the DB Order here : 'SC's Views On 'Live-In' Matters Can't Be Considered To Promote Such Relations': Allahabad HC Rejects Interfaith Live-In Couple's Protection Plea

Case before the Single Judge

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh was hearing a batch of petitions where live-in couples had sought police protection as they apprehended threats to their lives from family members.

The counsel appearing for the State opposed the pleas, arguing that Indian society cannot accept live-in relationships as a replacement for marriage, which carries societal and legal responsibilities.

Referring to such relationships as a mere contract of living together, "which is renewed every day" and can be terminated without consent, the State argued that granting them protection would impose an impermissible obligation on the State to protect personal choices that erode the country's social fabric.

The State further contended that the police cannot be compelled to serve as personal security for non-marital cohabitation based on vague apprehensions. Reliance was placed on Kiran Rawat verdict arguing that HC refused to provide protection to the couples residing together in a live-in relationship..

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Shwetashwa Agarwal, who assisted the Court as amicus curiae, contended that a live-in relationship cannot be said to be illegal and that the Supreme Court and the High Courts in various judgments have accepted the live-in relationship.

High Court's observations

Finding force in the submissions of the amicus and disagreeing with the state counsel's stand, Justice Singh, at the outset, noted that such relations are considered to be immoral while others see it as a valid choice for compatibility.

HC referred to several cases of the Supreme Court as well as of the High Courts across the country to hold that the life and liberty of individuals have to be protected regardless of the fact that individuals are living together without performing marriage.

Importantly, Justice Singh explicitly said that he was "unable to adopt the same view" as rendered by the HC (division bench) in the case of Kiran Rawat. Justice Singh added that the division bench order was not passed in consonance with the judgments passed by the Supreme Court.

The Single Judge noted that in landmark verdicts like Lata Singh and S. Khushboo, the Supreme Court had not criticised or deprecated live-in relationships or refused protection. Justice Singh ruled that the Division Bench's view in Kiran Rawat effectively ignored these binding precedents.

"From perusal of judgment of this Court in Kiran Rawat (supra), it is apparent that the Court has not held that all the couples residing in a livein relationship are not entitled to protection of the Court. The judgment was not passed in consonance with the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts of the present cases are entirely different from the facts of the case of Kiran Rawat (supra)", the Court remarked as it noted that Kiran Rawat was related to the case of interfaith couple.

The Court added 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,” the single judge held.

Thus, the HC rejected the State's argument that live-in relationships erode the "social fabric" while noting that it cannot remain a "silent spectator" when its extraordinary jurisdiction is invoked by young couples whose only 'fault' is exercising their choice.

The Court added that the petitioners herein, who are major, have made a decision to reside together without the sanctity of marriage, and it is not for the Courts to judge them on their decision.

Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions and directed that in case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, they can approach the Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP concerned with a certified copy of this order.

It further directed that the Police Officer after being satisfied that the petitioners are major and willingly living together, will provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

The Court also added that 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 a rural background and or are illiterate/semi-literate, the Police Officer can subject such a boy or girl to an ossification test to verify their correct age, and he can also follow the other procedure permissible under the law, the Court further provided.