In a significant judgment upholding personal autonomy and constitutional morality, the Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh police to provide immediate protection to 12 live-in couples who claimed they were facing life threats from their families and facing inaction from local authorities.
The Court categorically stated that while live-in relationships may still be viewed as "unacceptable" or "immoral" by certain segments of Indian society, they are not prohibited by law. The bench emphasized that the state has a "bounden duty" to protect the life and liberty of every citizen, regardless of whether they are married or unmarried.
The order was passed by a Single-Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh while hearing a batch of 13 writ petitions (with 12 couples successfully receiving relief). The petitioners, mostly women from various parts of Uttar Pradesh, approached the High Court seeking a "Writ of Mandamus" (a court order to a government official) to prevent family members and local police from interfering in their peaceful lives.
The couples argued that they are adults who have chosen to live together out of their own free will. However, their families were allegedly harassing them and threatening their lives. They further claimed that when they approached the local police for help, no effective action was taken to ensure their safety.
During the proceedings, the State Government opposed the petitions. The state counsel argued that live-in relationships cannot be accepted at the cost of the "social fabric" of the country. They contended that such arrangements have no legal status, can be terminated at will, and lead to various legal complications regarding the status of children born from such unions.
However, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh rejected these arguments, drawing a sharp line between social acceptance and legal rights.
"The concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of the marriage constitutes an offence," the Court observed.
The Bench highlighted that "legality" is not dependent on "morality." While society may debate the ethics of living together without marriage, the Constitution of India provides a higher protection through Article 21, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Marriage is Not a Condition for Rights: The Court held that the mere fact that a couple has not solemnized a marriage does not deprive them of their fundamental rights. The "Right to Human Life" stands on a much higher pedestal than marital status.
- Right to Choose a Partner: Once an individual attains the age of majority (18 years), they are statutorily conferred the right to choose their partner. Any interference in this choice by family members or the state is a violation of their human rights.
- The State’s Obligation: The Court reminded the authorities that it is their constitutional obligation to protect citizens. It stated, "Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence."
- Reference to Domestic Violence Act: Interestingly, the Court pointed out that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, already recognizes "relationships in the nature of marriage." The law provides protection and maintenance to women in such arrangements without using the word "wife," showing that the Indian legal system acknowledges non-marital cohabitation.
Directives to the Police
The High Court laid down a clear procedure for the couples to seek safety:
- Immediate Protection: If the couples face any disturbance, they can approach the Commissioner of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), or Superintendent of Police (SP) with a certified copy of the Court’s order.
- Verification Process: The police are directed to provide protection after satisfying themselves that the petitioners are adults and are living together voluntarily.
- Age Proof: If the couples are educated, they must provide educational certificates. For those from rural or illiterate backgrounds who lack documents, the police may conduct an "ossification test" (a medical test to determine age) to verify they are majors.
- No Coercive Action: The Court ordered that no police officer shall take any "coercive action" against these couples unless a formal First Information Report (FIR) is registered against them for an actual offence.
This judgment is seen as a strong reaffirmation of personal liberty. In recent times, some coordinate benches of various High Courts had expressed hesitation in granting protection to live-in couples, sometimes labeling the relationships as "socially alarming."