Once a Person is a Major, They Are Free to Choose Their Partner – Absence of Marriage No Ground To Deny Protection: Allahabad High Court

“Mere Absence of Marriage Cannot Override the Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty”, In a significant judgment that reiterates the primacy of personal liberty under the Indian Constitution, the Allahabad High Court ruled that adult individuals have the unqualified right to cohabit without marriage, and the State is constitutionally bound to protect their life and liberty, regardless of societal disapproval.

The Court held that the right to live in a live-in relationship is protected under Article 21, and personal autonomy “cannot be sacrificed at the altar of social morality.” The petitioners, both adults, had approached the Court seeking protection from threats posed by their families and society due to their decision to live together without marriage.

“Live-In Relationships May Be Socially Unacceptable, But They Are Not Illegal Under Any Law”

At the heart of the judgment lies the reaffirmation that live-in relationships, although controversial in the eyes of certain sections of society, are not illegal or criminal, and are in fact protected by the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and equality under Articles 21 and 14.

"Marriage is a sacred relationship in India," the Court acknowledged, but went on to distinguish live-in relationships as a form of cohabitation between consenting adults that may be free from societal and familial obligations associated with traditional marriage, but still deserves legal protection if entered into voluntarily.

The Court also rejected the notion that morality can trump legality. “Morality is subjective and cannot override constitutional freedoms. A live-in relationship may be immoral for some, but it is not an offence,” the Court observed.

Petitioners Sought Protection from Threats to Life Due to Live-In Relationship

The writ petitions were filed by couples who had chosen to live together without marriage, claiming threats to their safety from family members and society. They alleged inaction by local police despite credible threats. The State of U.P. opposed the petitions, arguing that such protection should only be provided to married couples, and that extending protection to live-in couples would erode Indian social values.

However, the Court categorically rejected these arguments, emphasizing that State protection cannot be made contingent upon the marital status of individuals.

Constitutional Protection Overrules Social Disapproval

The Court dealt comprehensively with the constitutional, evidentiary, and statutory aspects of the issue.

Quoting from Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, the Court stated:

“As the petitioner is sui juris, no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay.”

Relying on the landmark ruling in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan, the Court stressed:

“The social values and morals have their space but they are not above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom. The said freedom is both a constitutional and a human right.”

Similarly, invoking Lata Singh v. State of U.P., the Court reaffirmed:“Once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes… they cannot be harassed by anyone, and any such harassment is liable to criminal prosecution.”

The State’s contention that live-in relationships promote immorality and break down social fabric was sharply criticized. The Court noted that live-in relationships are recognised under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, through Section 2(f), which includes relationships “in the nature of marriage.”

Furthermore, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 119(1) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, were cited to underline that long-term cohabitation creates a legal presumption of marriage, ensuring protection especially for women and children.

State’s Role: Duty to Protect Life, Not Judge Lifestyle

The Court also issued a stern reminder to the State: “It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations cast upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on a much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major, married or unmarried.”

Rejecting the State's argument that protection should be denied in the absence of an FIR or proof of immediate danger, the Court held that:

“This Court cannot remain a silent spectator when its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is invoked seeking protection for personal liberty… of a young couple whose only fault is that they crossed the bridge not socially acceptable.”

The Court clarified that societal preferences or parental objections cannot serve as grounds to deny fundamental rights. As long as both individuals are major, they have the absolute right to choose their partner and the mode of cohabitation.

Binding Precedent: Other High Courts and Supreme Court Judgments Affirmed

In a well-reasoned judgment spanning numerous precedents, the Court relied on:

• S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal: Live-in relationships are not an offence and morality cannot override constitutional rights.

• Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma: Recognized the vulnerability of women in live-in relationships and need for protection.

• Badri Prasad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation: Recognized long-term cohabitation as valid marriage.

• D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal: Defined the ingredients of a relationship akin to marriage.

The Court also took note of similar protection orders passed by various High Courts including those in Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh, where the Courts had upheld the fundamental right to life and liberty of live-in couples, even where one partner was not of marriageable age but was legally an adult.

The contrary view in Kiran Rawat v. State of U.P. was distinguished as being factually specific and not binding.

Protection Granted, Verification Guidelines Issued

The High Court allowed the writ petitions and held that:

“Petitioners are at liberty to live together peacefully and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. Right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of marriage.”

The Court directed the Police Commissioners/SSPs/SPs to verify whether the petitioners are adults and are living together willingly. If so, immediate protection must be granted.

Where proof of age is unavailable, police may conduct ossification tests or verify educational records, and no coercive action shall be taken unless an FIR is registered alleging a cognizable offence.

The Court also acknowledged and appreciated the assistance rendered by Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, who was ably assisted by a team of counsels.

This ruling adds another significant layer to the growing jurisprudence in India that recognizes individual choice in relationships as a core constitutional right. By emphasizing that freedom, dignity, and personal autonomy cannot be curtailed by societal norms, the Allahabad High Court has decisively aligned itself with the progressive judicial trend set by the Supreme Court in recent years.

The message is clear: The Constitution protects the right to love, cohabit, and choose, even if society does not.

Date of Decision: December 17, 2025