Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court

"If the petitioners are already married and have their spouse alive, he/she cannot be legally permitted to enter into live-in relationship with a third person without seeking divorce from the earlier spouse." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated March 20, 2026, held that married individuals cannot be granted judicial protection for a live-in relationship unless they have obtained a valid decree of divorce from their existing spouses.

A single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that "the freedom of one person extincts where the statutory right of another person starts," emphasizing that the personal liberty to cohabit cannot encroach upon the legal rights of a legally wedded spouse.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The petitioners, who are both already married to other individuals, approached the High Court filing a writ petition to seek protection from an alleged threat to their lives from a private respondent. They claimed to be living together peacefully as husband and wife. The State opposed the plea, pointing out that neither petitioner had obtained a legal decree of divorce from a competent court to dissolve their subsisting marriages.

LEGAL ISSUES

The primary question before the court was whether persons who are already legally married can claim police protection for a live-in relationship with a third party. The court was also called upon to determine whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to protect a relationship that potentially constitutes a bigamous or adulterous offence under the Indian Penal Code.

COURT'S OBSERVATIONS

Delving into the interplay between personal liberty and marital obligations, the court noted that while consenting adults generally have the right to choose their partners without familial interference, the right to personal liberty is not absolute. The bench highlighted that a legally wedded spouse possesses a statutory right to the company of their partner, which cannot be sacrificed at the altar of another's personal liberty. Emphasizing that an individual must obtain a legal divorce before entering into a live-in arrangement, the court noted, "If the petitioners are already married and have their spouse alive, he/she cannot be legally permitted to enter into live-in relationship with a third person without seeking divorce from the earlier spouse."

The court further elaborated on the legal recognition of relationships, clarifying that bigamous or adulterous cohabitations do not qualify as valid relationships in the nature of marriage. The bench firmly reiterated that any relationship maintained while a prior marriage subsists constitutes a criminal offence under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Detailing the types of unrecognized alliances, the court observed, "Polygamy... or a relationship by way of a bigamous marriage that is marrying someone while already married to another and/or maintaining an adulterous relationship... cannot be said to be a relationship in the nature of marriage."

"It is well settled law that writ of mandamus can not be issued contrary to law or to defeat a statutory provision including penal provision."

Addressing the maintainability of the writ petition, the court held that a writ of mandamus can only be issued to enforce a subsisting legal right, which the petitioners entirely lacked. The bench reasoned that granting judicial protection to the petitioners would effectively amount to shielding them against prosecution for criminal offences under the IPC. Refusing to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a manner that defeats statutory provisions, the court stated, "It is well settled law that writ of mandamus can not be issued contrary to law or to defeat a statutory provision including penal provision."

The court relied heavily on a string of coordinate and division bench judgments, including Asha Devi vs. State of U.P., Bhagwati Pathwar vs. State of U.P., and Smt. Sonam vs. State of U.P., to decline the prayer for protection. However, recognizing the fundamental right to life, the court granted the petitioners the liberty to approach the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police with a detailed representation if they faced any actual acts of violence. The bench directed the police to verify the contents and act strictly according to the law. "It is expected that upon receipt of such application/representation, the concerned authority shall verify its contents and do the needful in accordance with law to secure the life and limb of the petitioners."

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, definitively ruling that judicial protection cannot be weaponized to shield live-in relationships that violate existing marital ties. While declining to issue a writ of mandamus to validate the cohabitation, the court ensured that the petitioners' basic human right to safety was preserved by allowing them recourse to local police authorities in the event of a physical threat.

Date of Decision: 20 March 2026