The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that major adults in consensual live-in relationships are protected under constitutional rights and cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings merely due to familial disapproval. This ruling reinforces the legal recognition of personal autonomy and challenges the misuse of FIRs to interfere in private relationships.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Khushi Gautam and another, are two adult individuals engaged in a consensual live-in relationship. Respondent No.4, identified as a family member of one petitioner, disapproves of this relationship and lodged FIR No.137 of 2026 under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.) at Police Station Dubagga, Lucknow. The FIR alleges criminal conduct related to the petitioners’ cohabitation, despite both parties being of legal age and having entered into the relationship voluntarily.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No.1, Khushi Gautam, was born on 12.04.2000 and is 26 years old as of 2026
- Petitioner No.2 was born on 05.08.1999 and is 27 years old as of 2026
- Both petitioners have submitted certified copies of their birth certificates as proof of majority
- The relationship began in early 2025 and has been continuous and consensual
- Respondent No.4 is not a victim of any crime but is a relative opposed to the relationship
- No allegations of coercion, abduction, or non-consensual conduct are contained in the FIR
- The FIR was registered on 15.05.2026, following repeated objections by Respondent No.4
Procedural History
- 15.05.2026: FIR No.137 of 2026 registered under Section 87 B.N.S. at Police Station Dubagga, Lucknow
- 20.05.2026: Petitioners filed the present writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
- 02.06.2026: Hearing conducted before a Division Bench of the High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners assert that they are both major, capable of making autonomous decisions regarding personal relationships. They argue that their live-in relationship is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and is explicitly recognized under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. They contend that the FIR is an abuse of process, motivated by familial opposition rather than any criminal act.
For the Respondents
The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, did not contest the factual assertions regarding the petitioners’ majority or the consensual nature of the relationship. Respondent No.4, represented by Shri Devendra Nath Tripathi, submitted that the relationship is socially unacceptable and that the FIR was lodged to protect family honor, but offered no legal basis for criminalizing consensual cohabitation.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.137 of 2026 under Section 87 B.N.S., along with a direction to the police to cease all investigation and coercive action against them. They also seek protection from arrest or interrogation pending final disposal of the matter.
The Legal Issue
The central question is whether the registration of an FIR against two major adults solely on account of their consensual live-in relationship, without any allegation of coercion, abduction, or unlawful conduct, constitutes an abuse of process and violates their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nandkumar & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors (2018) 16 SCC 602, which held that major individuals have the right to live together even outside wedlock. The counsel emphasized that the legislature itself has recognized live-in relationships under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, thereby affirming their legitimacy. It was argued that criminalizing such relationships under Section 87 B.N.S. - a provision meant for public order offenses - is a gross misapplication of law and an infringement of personal liberty.
For the Respondent
The State did not advance any substantive legal argument to justify the FIR. Respondent No.4’s counsel raised social and cultural objections but failed to cite any statutory provision or judicial precedent that criminalizes consensual cohabitation between adults. The absence of any allegation of force, fraud, or underage involvement rendered the FIR legally unsustainable.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the FIR and found no factual basis for invoking Section 87 B.N.S., which pertains to offenses against public tranquility or unlawful assembly. The petitioners’ relationship, as admitted by all parties, is consensual and involves two adults of legal age. The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Nandkumar & Anr had unequivocally held 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 observed that the FIR was lodged not to investigate a crime but to exert social pressure on the petitioners. The Court emphasized that personal autonomy, dignity, and privacy are integral to Article 21 and cannot be curtailed by familial disapproval or moral policing. The Court further held that the registration of such an FIR amounts to a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights and constitutes an abuse of the criminal process.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The FIR No.137 of 2026 registered under Section 87 B.N.S. at Police Station Dubagga, Lucknow, is quashed. No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in connection with the said FIR. The petitioners are directed to cooperate with the investigation only to the extent of providing voluntary statements, and the Investigating Officer shall record the same without any pressure. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 09.07.2026 for the purpose of recording their statements.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Live-in Relationships Cannot Be Criminalized by Family Complaints
- Practitioners must challenge FIRs registered against consenting adults in live-in relationships where no criminal act is alleged
- Courts must apply the Nandkumar precedent to dismiss such complaints as abuse of process
- Police cannot register FIRs under general penal provisions like Section 87 B.N.S. for private consensual relationships
Judicial Protection Extends Beyond Marriage
- The recognition of live-in relationships under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, now carries constitutional weight
- Any attempt to use criminal law to enforce social norms against adult cohabitation is unconstitutional
- Petitioners in similar cases may now seek immediate interim protection from arrest pending disposal of quashing petitions
Procedural Safeguards Must Be Enforced
- Courts must issue interim protection from arrest in such cases, as done here
- Investigating officers must record statements without coercion and avoid stigmatizing language
- Family members cannot act as complainants in criminal matters involving private adult relationships without concrete evidence of crime
