The Delhi High Court has held that live-in relationships are akin to marriage, though not legally recognized, and consulting adults in such relationships are entitled to police protection.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that a live-in relationship attracts the protection of individuals' fundamental rights to freedom, life and liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court said that consenting adults have the unfettered right to choose their partners and reside with them in a live-in relationship without interference from parents, relatives or other persons.

Justice Banerjee was dealing with a petition filed by a couple seeking protection of their life and liberty from the father and brother of the woman.

The couple submitted that they had known each other since 2014 and had been residing together in a live-in relationship. They intended to marry, but alleged that the woman's father and brother, who were unhappy with their relationship, had been threatening them with violence.

They further submitted that despite making a complaint to the concerned police station on August 0 6, no action was taken.

Granting police protection to them, the Court noted that the couple, born in 1993 and 1990, were consenting adults and therefore had the right to choose and reside together in a live-in relationship according to their individual choice.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., the Court observed that irrespective of whether majors have entered into wedlock, they have an unfettered right to reside with each other as they desire.

It also noted that live-in relationships have received recognition in law, including under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“The petitioners herein are though in a Live-In Relationship, are not legally married to each, however, being consenting adults, the same is akin to marriage, though not legally,” the Court said.

It added: “And marriages in India are recognised if they are inter-se two consenting individuals, irrespective of the caste, creed, colour, religion and/ or faith. In such a scenario, both Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantee fundamental rights to each of such parties in the form of their respective right to freedom and also their respective right to life and liberty.”

Further relying on the Apex Court's decision in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., the Court observed that curtailing an individual's choice on the basis of societal morals and prejudices amounts to deprivation of their individualistic identity.

The Court emphasised that once the petitioners had willingly and consensually chosen to enter into a live-in relationship, nobody, including their parents, relatives or friends, had the authority to interfere with their choice, “much less threaten their life or liberty.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed that the couple could approach the SHO of Police Station Vijay Vihar or the concerned beat constable whenever required, who would provide them necessary assistance in accordance with law.

The Court further directed that if the couple shifted to another police station's jurisdiction, they would inform the concerned SHO of their new address within three days, following which the concerned police authorities would extend similar protection to them.

Title: UMA BHARTI & ANR v. THE GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

Click here to read order