In a notable instance of differing judicial observations from the same high court within days, the Allahabad High Court has issued two opposite rulings on the legality of live-in relationships involving married individuals. While in one case the High Court said that married people can’t enter into a live-in relationship with others without divorce, in another case, another bench of the same court said that such live-in relations are not illegal.
On March 20, 2026, a single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh dismissed a writ petition filed by a couple, both already married to different partners, seeking police protection for their live-in relationship. The petitioners claimed threats to their lives and liberty while living together as husband and wife, even though they are still married to their respective spouses.
The court observed that a person who is already married with a living spouse cannot legally enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without first obtaining a divorce from the earlier spouse. Justice Singh emphasised that personal liberty under Article 21 is not absolute and cannot override the statutory rights of an existing spouse, including the right to consortium.
The judgement states, “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. He/she first has to obtain the decree of divorce from the court of competent jurisdiction before solemnizing marriage or entering into living in a relationship out of their legal marriage.”
The bench refused to issue a mandamus for protection, noting it could not be granted as it will amount to providing protection for committing an offence under Sections 494/495 of the IPC (bigamy). It clarified that while consenting adults generally enjoy freedom in personal matters, such relationships without divorce lack a “legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right” for protection orders. The petition was disposed of, with liberty to approach police in case of actual violence.
Just days later, on 25th March, 2026, a division bench comprising Justices JJ Munir and Tarun Saxena took a different stance in a similar protection petition filed by an 18-year-old adult woman named Anamika and a married man named Netrapal. The couple alleged facing threats of honour killing from the woman’s family, who had lodged an FIR alleging the man lured her away. The woman asserted in a complaint to the Superintendent of Police that she was staying with him of her own free will.
The division bench held that there is no offence under the law where a married man stays in a consensual live-in relationship with an adult woman. The court stressed that morality and law must be kept separate, and social opinions cannot guide judicial action when no criminal offence is made out.
The court observed, “There is no offence of the kind where a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, by consent of the other person, can be prosecuted for any offence, whatsoever. Morality and law have to be kept apart. If there is no offence under the law made out, social opinions and morality will not guide the action of the Court for protecting the rights of citizens.”
It directed police protection for the couple, and held the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, personally responsible for their safety. The court granted interim relief against arrest in the criminal case filed by the girl’s family, and restrained the family from harming them or interfering.
Therefore, in similar petitions, the court granted police protection in one case and refused the same in the other case. The 20 March ruling involved both partners being married to third parties and focused on the absence of a legal right to protection that might indirectly shield against potential bigamy-related offences.
The 25th March case involved one married man and an unmarried adult woman, and the court said that there is no specific criminal offence for consensual cohabitation and said that police have duty to protect adults from family threats or honour-related violence.
Notably, while live-in relationships between consenting adults have been recognised in several Supreme Court and High Court judgments as part of the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), complications arise when one or both parties are already married. Bigamy and polygamy remains an offence under Indian law under IPC Sections 494/495, now mirrored in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
This is not the first case where High Courts have issued opposite judgements in similar cases. Different High Courts in the country have issued completely opposite verdicts in varied category of cases.
