Marital Status Irrelevant When Protecting Life And Liberty Of Consenting Adults In Live-In Relationship: Delhi High Court

"For this, the status of the citizens, whether they are (un)married or are in a Live-In relationship, is not a germane factor for consideration whence this Court is dealing with the present proceedings," Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the marital status of consenting adults in a live-in relationship is not a relevant factor when safeguarding their fundamental right to life and personal liberty.

A single-judge bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that all Indian citizens are entitled to constitutional protections under Articles 19 and 21, irrespective of whether they are married to other partners or reside together out of wedlock.

The petitioners, both married to different individuals and having children from their respective marriages, entered into a live-in relationship to escape the alleged harassment inflicted upon the first petitioner by her husband. After fleeing from Hyderabad to Delhi due to constant intimidation from the woman's family and local police, the couple continued to face threats to their safety. They subsequently approached the High Court seeking police protection after their formal representations to the authorities went unanswered.

The primary question before the court was whether consenting adults in a live-in relationship, who are legally married to other individuals, are entitled to police protection from their families. The court was also called upon to determine whether the nature or societal perception of their relationship could disqualify them from invoking fundamental constitutional guarantees.

Constitutional Protection Extends To All Citizens

The court emphasised that as Indian national citizens, the petitioners are fully entitled to the guarantees and fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The bench noted that the primary duty of the constitutional court is to safeguard the freedom and personal liberty of citizens facing legitimate threats. Justice Banerjee underscored that the state's obligation to protect lives remains absolute when approached by consenting adults.

Nature Of Relationship Not A Germane Factor

Addressing the fact that both petitioners were already married to other partners, the court firmly ruled that the nature of their current association does not preclude them from seeking legal protection. The bench clarified that moral policing or scrutinising the marital history of the parties falls outside the purview of the court when life and limb are at imminent risk.

"Their right to freedom and/ or right to life and personal liberty deserve protection from this Court since, at the end of the day, both the petitioners being consenting adults have approached this Court for adequate protection."

"Without going into the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding on 11.03.2026 inter se them, this Court is of the considered opinion that they are entitled for due protection in accordance with law."

Validity Of Live-In Agreement Irrelevant For Protection

The court further observed that the petitioners had executed a Memorandum of Understanding between themselves to formalise their live-in relationship. However, the bench explicitly noted that delving into the legal enforceability of this document was entirely unnecessary for deciding a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court maintained that the sole focus of the justice system in such cases must remain exclusively on ensuring the physical safety of the individuals.

Police Directed To Ensure Continuous Safety

Taking note of the submissions made by the Additional Standing Counsel that the Delhi Police is always ready to ensure the safety of citizens, the court issued specific directives to the local authorities. The bench permitted the petitioners to freely contact the Station House Officer, Beat Constable, or Duty Officer of Police Station Lodhi Colony whenever a need arises. The police machinery was specifically instructed to take all possible steps to provide immediate and adequate assistance.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court directed the local police to extend comprehensive protection to the couple in accordance with the law. The court further directed that in the event the petitioners change their residence, they must inform the Station House Officer of the new jurisdiction within three days to ensure uninterrupted safety and assistance.

Date of Decision: 06 April 2026