A married man living with an adult woman in a live-in relationship does not commit an offence, the Allahabad High Court has said, making it clear that courts cannot let social morality dictate legal protection. The observation came as the court heard a plea from a couple in Uttar Pradesh seeking relief from a police case filed against them, even as they feared for their safety.
"There is no offence of the kind where a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, by consent of the other person, can be prosecuted for any offence, whatsoever. Morality and law have to be kept apart. If there is no offence under the law made out, social opinions and morality will not guide the action of the Court for protecting the rights of citizens," the Bench said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
The court noted that the woman had already written to the Superintendent of Police in Shahjahanpur, stating clearly that she was in the relationship of her own free will.
Threat claims raise concerns over safety
The woman also told the police that her family opposed the relationship and had allegedly issued death threats. The couple expressed fear of an honour killing, according to Bar and Bench.
Despite the complaint, the court observed that no visible action had been taken by the police authorities.
"Apparently, no action has been taken on this complaint by the Superintendent of Police. To protect two adults living together is the duty of the Police. Particular obligations in this regard are cast upon the Superintendent of Police, as held by the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others, (2018) 7 SCC 192. This petition is supported by joint affidavit of both the petitioners," the Court said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
In a country where social norms often clash with personal choices, the court’s message is blunt: legality does not bend to societal discomfort.
Court draws a line between law and social morality
During the hearing, the woman’s family argued that the man’s existing marriage made the live-in arrangement illegal. The court, however, refused to accept this view and stressed that legality cannot be judged through the lens of social approval."There is no offence of the kind where a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, by consent of the other person, can be prosecuted for any offence, whatsoever. Morality and law have to be kept apart. If there is no offence under the law made out, social opinions and morality will not guide the action of the Court for protecting the rights of citizens," the Bench said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
Couple moves court fearing police action
The case reached the High Court through a criminal writ petition filed by the couple from Shahjahanpur. They asked the court to quash the police case registered against them, arguing that they were adults living together by choice.The court noted that the woman had already written to the Superintendent of Police in Shahjahanpur, stating clearly that she was in the relationship of her own free will.
Threat claims raise concerns over safety
The woman also told the police that her family opposed the relationship and had allegedly issued death threats. The couple expressed fear of an honour killing, according to Bar and Bench.Despite the complaint, the court observed that no visible action had been taken by the police authorities.
"Apparently, no action has been taken on this complaint by the Superintendent of Police. To protect two adults living together is the duty of the Police. Particular obligations in this regard are cast upon the Superintendent of Police, as held by the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others, (2018) 7 SCC 192. This petition is supported by joint affidavit of both the petitioners," the Court said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.
What this ruling means for Live-in relationships
The ruling reinforces a recurring position taken by courts that personal relationships between consenting adults fall within the domain of individual liberty. It also sends a signal to law enforcement agencies that protection of such couples is not optional, especially when threats are involved.In a country where social norms often clash with personal choices, the court’s message is blunt: legality does not bend to societal discomfort.
