Muslim Personal Law Permitting Marriage After Puberty Doesn't Apply To Live-In Relationships: Allahabad High Court

Justice Garima Prashad remarked:

“Even if some schools of Muslim personal law may recognise marriage on puberty, that concerns marriage and not a live-in arrangement outside marriage.”

The Court was considering a plea preferred by an inter-faith couple, who were in a live-in relationship, seeking directions to the police to restrain their families from interfering in their co-habitation and to ensure the protection of their lives and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioners before the Court were a 20-year-old Muslim woman and a 19-year-old Hindu man, belonging to a Scheduled Caste community. They contended that the woman's father has been threatening them to discontinue their relationship whereas the man's family did not have any objections to the relationship.

The petitioners said that they could not solemnize their marriage since the boy had not attained the age of 21 years as required by the Special Marriage Act. They said that since they were adults, they are entitled to live-in with persons of their choice even without marriage.

The State, however, opposed the plea and pointed out that the man, being below the age of 21 years, would fall within the definition of a “child”. It was also submitted that since the legislature has taken a stand that a man below 21 years is not having the legal capacity to marry, the Court ought not indirectly permit a “marriage-like” relationship.

After hearing the parties, the Court went on to examine the scope of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. It then remarked that all these legislations say that a marriage with male who has not attained 21 years is restricted.

Next, the Court saw whether Muslim personal law can assist the petitioners and answered the same in the negative:

“The position under Muslim personal law also requires notice. Petitioner no.1 belongs to the Muslim community. The petitioners do not claim that they have solemnised a nikah. As per their own case, they are in a live-in relationship outside marriage…In the present case, the petitioners do not assert a Muslim marriage at all. Therefore, Muslim personal law does not come to their assistance. At the same time, even if a more permissive rule existed in any personal law, the secular statutes presently in force prescribe the higher threshold that this Court is bound to enforce. Thus, what cannot be achieved either as a valid secular marriage or as a pleaded lawful marriage under the applicable personal-law framework cannot be judicially reconstituted as a sanctioned live-in arrangement.”

The Court then observed that a live-in relationship is like a marriage and if the law withholds the right to marry until a later age, a court order cannot indirectly sanction the same.

It, however, clarified that the petitioners have the choice to approach the police with a complaint in case of any threat or violence and in case such a complaint is preferred, the police are to act in an expeditious manner.

The Court further remarked that protection cannot extend to restraining parents, guardians or statutory authorities from taking lawful steps under the applicable statutory framework.

Thus, it dismissed the plea.

Case No: WRIC No. 469 of 2026

Case Title: Shajiya Parveen and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others

Click to Read/Download Judgment