In a significant affirmation of personal liberties, the Allahabad High Court has directed state authorities to refrain from interfering in the peaceful live-in relationship of two consenting majors, grounding its decision in the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment underscores that adults have the right to cohabit without state or third-party interference, provided no criminal proceedings are pending against them.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Afsar and another individual, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the state authorities to provide them protection. They alleged that the opposite party no. 4, presumably a family member, was disrupting their peaceful live-in relationship. The petitioners contended that they were both majors, living together of their own free will, and that no First Information Report (FIR) had been registered against them.
Key Facts
- The petitioners claimed to be majors, as evidenced by their Aadhar Cards annexed to the petition
- They asserted that they were in a live-in relationship by mutual consent
- Opposite party no. 4 was allegedly creating hindrances in their relationship
- No FIR had been registered against the petitioners regarding their relationship
- The petition was supported by an affidavit affirming their major status
Procedural History
- Filing of the Petition: The instant writ petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5445 of 2026) was filed seeking protection under Article 226 of the Constitution
- Notice Dispensation: The Court dispensed with notice to opposite party no. 4, given the nature of the relief sought
- Interim Directions: During the proceedings, the Court was informed that a Missing Report dated 01.06.2026 had been lodged by opposite party no. 4 for petitioner no. 1
- Final Order: The Court disposed of the petition with directions for protection, subject to petitioner no. 1 appearing for statement recording on 11.06.2026
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- A writ of mandamus directing opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 (state authorities) to provide protection to their life and liberty
- An order restraining opposite party no. 4 from disturbing their peaceful live-in relationship
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether state authorities or third parties can interfere in the peaceful cohabitation of two consenting majors, absent any criminal proceedings, and whether the right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to live in a live-in relationship without interference.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- Relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandkumar & Anr vs State of Kerala & Ors [(2018) 16 SCC 602], which held that live-in relationships are recognised by law and that majors have the right to live together outside wedlock
- Argued that both petitioners were majors and living together of their own volition
- Contended that no FIR had been registered against them, and thus, their relationship was peaceful and lawful
- Emphasised that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 implicitly recognises live-in relationships
For the Respondent/State
- The state, represented by the Advocate General, did not contest the petitioners' claim of being majors or their right to cohabit
- However, the Court was informed of a Missing Report lodged by opposite party no. 4, necessitating further inquiry
- The state sought clarification on the petitioners' status, given the Missing Report
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's judgment in Nandkumar, which unequivocally recognised the right of majors to live together in a live-in relationship. The Court observed:
"For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that both Appellant 1 and Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that live-in relationship is now recognised by the legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."
The Court emphasised that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live peacefully without interference from state authorities or third parties, provided no criminal proceedings are pending. The Court clarified that its order was not an adjudication on the validity or veracity of the live-in relationship but a direction to ensure the petitioners' peaceful cohabitation was not disturbed.
The Court also took note of the Missing Report lodged by opposite party no. 4 and directed petitioner no. 1 to appear before the concerned authority for statement recording. The Court made it clear that non-compliance with this direction would nullify the benefit of its order.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The opposite parties (state authorities) were directed not to interfere in the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner
- The order would automatically stand discharged if any FIR was already registered on the issue
- Petitioner no. 1 was directed to appear before the concerned authority on 11.06.2026 for recording of her statement, failing which the petitioners would not be entitled to the benefit of this order
- The Court explicitly stated that it had not adjudicated the age of the petitioners or the validity of their live-in relationship
What This Means For Similar Cases
Live-in Relationships Are Protected Under Article 21
- The judgment reinforces that consenting majors in a live-in relationship have a constitutional right to cohabit peacefully without interference from state authorities or third parties
- Practitioners can rely on this judgment to argue for protection under Article 21 in cases where live-in couples face harassment or threats from family members or society
- The Court's reliance on Nandkumar underscores that live-in relationships are legally recognised, and any interference would violate the right to life and personal liberty
Procedural Safeguards and Compliance Are Critical
- The Court's order is conditional on compliance with procedural directions, such as appearing for statement recording
- Failure to comply with such directions can nullify the protection granted, as seen in this case
- Practitioners must ensure that no criminal proceedings are pending against their clients, as the Court's protection would automatically stand discharged in such cases
No Adjudication on Validity of Relationship
- The Court made it clear that its order does not validate or adjudicate the live-in relationship itself
- This distinction is crucial for practitioners to note, as the judgment only protects the right to cohabit peacefully, not the legal status of the relationship
- Future cases may still require separate adjudication on issues such as inheritance, maintenance, or domestic violence, where the validity of the relationship may be contested
