The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that major individuals in a live-in relationship are entitled to state protection under Article 21 of the Constitution, reinforcing that personal autonomy in intimate choices is a fundamental right. This ruling dismantles societal prejudice by mandating proactive police intervention to safeguard couples facing familial threats.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a consenting adult couple, are residing together against the wishes of their families. They fear physical harm, harassment, or forced separation by relatives who oppose their relationship. Despite having no formal marriage, both parties are above the age of majority and have voluntarily chosen to cohabit. They submitted representations to local authorities seeking protection but received no meaningful response.
Procedural History
- The petitioners filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking immediate police protection.
- No criminal complaint had been registered against them at the time of filing.
- The State opposed the petition on grounds of societal morality, arguing that granting protection would encourage "promiscuity."
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Immediate police protection to ensure their safety and liberty
- Direction to authorities to act on their representations without delay
- Assurance that any future complaints against them would be investigated lawfully, without coercive action
- Restraint on harassment stemming solely from their choice of companionship
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to live-in relationships and whether the State has a positive obligation to protect such couples from threats by private individuals.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Nandakumar v. State of Kerala to argue that the Supreme Court has recognized the right of major individuals to cohabit outside marriage. He emphasized that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 explicitly includes "women in a live-in relationship" within its definition of "aggrieved person," thereby validating such relationships as legally recognized. He contended that denial of protection would violate the right to life and personal liberty and amount to state complicity in societal coercion.
For the Respondent
The State’s advocate opposed the petition, asserting that granting protection to live-in couples would undermine traditional family values and promote moral decay. He argued that the State should not intervene in private familial disputes unless a cognizable offence has been committed, and that such protection could set a precedent encouraging non-marital cohabitation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evolution of personal autonomy under Article 21, referencing Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India to establish that the right to choose a partner is intrinsic to dignity and privacy. It noted that the State’s duty under Article 21 is not merely negative (to refrain from interference) but affirmative - to protect individuals from non-state actors when their fundamental rights are threatened.
"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 recognized by the legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."
The Court rejected the State’s moralistic objection as constitutionally impermissible, holding that societal disapproval cannot override constitutional rights. It emphasized that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not merely symbolic - it reflects legislative recognition of live-in relationships as legitimate social arrangements deserving legal protection. The Court further held that the petitioners’ fear of violence, though not yet materialized, was credible and imminent, justifying preventive state action.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Court held that major individuals in a live-in relationship are entitled to police protection under Article 21, and directed the State to provide immediate safeguards. It mandated that the SHO of Indore share his contact details with the petitioners for emergency access and ordered the Deputy Commissioner to ensure compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Protection Is a Constitutional Obligation
- Practitioners must now argue that fear of familial violence against live-in couples triggers a State duty under Article 21, even without a prior FIR
- Applications for protection under Article 226 should be framed as urgent matters of life and liberty, not as requests for moral endorsement
- Courts may issue interim directions for police liaison even before full hearing if credible threat is established
Domestic Violence Act Validates Legal Recognition
- The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 now serves as a statutory anchor for recognizing live-in relationships in protection petitions
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to counter arguments that live-in relationships are "illegal" or "immoral" in bail, custody, or protection matters
- This strengthens claims for maintenance, residence rights, and protection orders under the DV Act even where marriage is not formalized
No Criminalization of Choice
- Merely living together cannot be grounds for harassment, arrest, or social stigma
- Police must not treat live-in couples as suspects or offenders unless a specific cognizable offence is reported and verified
- Any coercive action against such couples without due process violates natural justice and may attract contempt proceedings
