Judicial Discipline Demands Uniformity: Rajasthan High Court Refers Protection of Married Persons in Live-in Relationships to Special Bench

Judicial Discipline Demands Uniformity – Conflicting Views Cannot Continue -addressed the contentious issue of married individuals seeking protection for live-in relationships. Given the conflicting judgments by different coordinate benches of the High Court, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred the issue to a Special Bench for a definitive ruling.

The court framed a critical legal question: "Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolution of his/her marriage, or two married persons with different spouses living in a live-in relationship, without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to get protection orders from the Court?"

Recognizing the lack of clarity in judicial precedents, the court observed: "Judicial decorum and legal propriety demand that where a Single Bench or Division Bench does not agree with the decision of a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction, the matter should be referred to a Larger Bench."

The petitioners, Reena and her partner, approached the Rajasthan High Court under Article 21 of the Constitution, seeking protection from threats posed by family members and society due to their live-in relationship. The case, however, became legally complex because at least one of the partners was already married.

The court noted a rising number of similar petitions being filed every day, where couples living in non-marital relationships sought protection from social harassment. Despite numerous Supreme Court rulings affirming the constitutional right to choose a partner, Rajasthan High Court benches had issued contradictory judgments on cases involving married persons in live-in relationships.

"Right to Live with a Partner of Choice is Fundamental – But Can it Override Marriage Laws?"

Justice Dhand referred to landmark Supreme Court rulings, stating: "The right to live with a partner of one's choice is a necessary component of the right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Citing S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), he emphasized that live-in relationships, though socially unacceptable to many, are not illegal. The court reiterated:

"Living together is an aspect of the right to life and personal liberty. A live-in relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, even though it may not receive social approval."

However, the court acknowledged that legal recognition of such relationships remains uncertain. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, does not acknowledge live-in relationships, and under Muslim personal law, such relationships are considered "haram" and impermissible.

Justice Dhand highlighted the legal vacuum in India’s marriage and family law, stating: "The courts attempt to fill the vacuum in law, but judicial interpretations have led to uncertainty and fragmented application of legal principles. The need of the hour is a comprehensive legislative framework."

Conflicting High Court Decisions – Live-in Relationship Protection for Married Individuals Divides the Judiciary

The Rajasthan High Court examined contradictory judgments issued by different coordinate benches on whether a married person can claim protection for a live-in relationship.

Some benches allowed protection under Article 21, stating that the right to personal liberty must prevail over social morality. In Leela Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan (2021), the court observed: "Even if any illegality or wrongfulness has been committed, the duty to punish vests solely with the State, that too in attune with due process of law. In no circumstance can the State bypass due process or permit acts of moral policing."

Similarly, in Manisha Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2023), the court held: "Constitutional morality must override societal morality. If courts refuse protection merely on moral grounds, it would be a serious transgression of fundamental rights."

However, other coordinate benches took a contrary view, holding that such relationships violate marriage laws and social fabric. In Rashika Khandal v. State of Rajasthan (2021), the court refused protection, stating: "A live-in relationship between a married and an unmarried person is not permissible. The pre-requisites for a valid live-in relationship include both partners being unmarried."

The Punjab & Haryana High Court (2024) echoed this view, holding that granting protection to such relationships would "disrupt the social fabric and encourage illegality."

Justice Dhand acknowledged the uncertainty created by these conflicting judgments, emphasizing that judicial discipline demands uniformity. He stated: "When different benches of the same court issue contradictory rulings, judicial propriety mandates that the issue be settled by a larger bench. It is impermissible for courts to continue issuing conflicting interpretations of the same legal question."

"Should Courts Protect Live-in Relationships Involving Married Persons?" – Special Bench to Decide

Observing the legal uncertainty, the Rajasthan High Court formally referred the issue to a Special Bench, stating: "There is no exact and settled decision of this Court on the legal issue involved in this petition. Rather, there are conflicting opinions of different Co-ordinate Benches. The matter must be conclusively decided for all times to come."

The Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court was directed to constitute a Special/Larger Bench to answer: "Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolution of his/her marriage, or two married persons with different spouses living in a live-in relationship, without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to get protection orders from the Court?"

"Law Cannot Remain Silent – Parliament Must Address Live-in Relationship Rights"

The court also highlighted the urgent need for legislative clarity. Justice Dhand noted that the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand, 2024, includes regulations for live-in relationships, something missing at the national level. He urged the Parliament and State Legislatures to enact a uniform legal framework to govern such relationships.

He recommended interim measures, including:

• Mandatory registration of live-in relationships to establish legal accountability.

• Fixing liabilities of partners regarding financial support, especially for women and children.

• Setting up grievance redressal mechanisms at the district level.

Directing immediate administrative action, the court ordered: "Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of Rajasthan, the Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Justice, and the Secretary, Department of Justice and Social Welfare, New Delhi, to take necessary steps. A compliance report must be submitted by March 1, 2025."

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision to refer the issue to a Special Bench marks a crucial moment in India’s evolving jurisprudence on live-in relationships. The upcoming ruling is expected to establish a binding precedent on whether married individuals can claim protection in live-in relationships.

With societal norms clashing with constitutional rights, the judiciary now faces a defining test: "Should the law recognize a married person's right to a live-in relationship, or should marriage laws take precedence over individual autonomy?"

Date of Decision: January 29, 2025