#Live-in Relationship

The Gujarat High Court upheld a Section 376 acquittal, holding that written live-in consent deeds raise a presumption of implied consent to sexual relations, and a marriage promise by a minor is legally unenforceable. The ruling establishes that documented cohabitation agreements can defeat 'false promise of marriage' rape charges when the accused was below marriageable age.

The Uttarakhand HC held that adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to Article 21 protection and must register under Section 381(1) of the Uttarakhand UCC, 2024, while police assess threats and provide protection.

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed the rape FIR against a man who had lived with a widow for two years, ruling that cohabitation does not create a presumption of consent under the triple test. The decision underscores that a broken promise of marriage cannot convert a consensual live-in relationship into a rape charge. It limits the use of Section 482 to curb abuse of criminal process in similar cases.

A live-in partner can now be treated as a ‘husband’ under Section 498A if cruelty is established, extending the law’s protection beyond formal marriage. This interpretation covers cohabiting couples who share marital attributes.

Uttarakhand HC directs police to assess and provide protection to inter-faith live-in couples under Article 21 if genuine threats exist, citing Lata Singh v. State of U.P. to uphold personal liberty against interference.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that major individuals in consensual live-in relationships are entitled to police protection against threats from family members, affirming their right to personal autonomy under Article 21 and extending the scope of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act beyond marital ties. This sets a critical precedent for safeguarding adult couples from coercive family interference, regardless of marital status.

Bombay High Court rules that consensual physical relations in a live-in relationship, even if predicated on a false promise of marriage, do not constitute rape under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The court granted anticipatory bail, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty for consenting adults in long-term live-in arrangements.

Rajasthan High Court reaffirms that a habeas corpus petition cannot override the corpus's voluntary choice to live with her husband. The ruling underscores that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to reside with a chosen partner, even if the relationship is not legally recognized as a live-in partnership.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that two consenting adults who have married under personal law are entitled to live together without state interference, regardless of whether their marriage is formally registered or legally validated by the court. This reinforces that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 protects cohabitation based on mutual consent, not procedural compliance - a critical safeguard for interfaith and non-traditional unions facing familial pressure.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that the right to life under Article 21 includes protection from threats, even for couples in live-in relationships, without adjudicating the relationship's legality. The ruling mandates police to assess threat perceptions and provide protection, reinforcing state responsibility to safeguard personal liberty regardless of social or legal judgments on relationship status.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that two adults, even if below the legal marriageable age, have a fundamental right under Article 21 to cohabit consensually without state or familial interference. This reinforces that personal liberty and autonomy in intimate relationships supersede age-based marital restrictions, extending protection to couples facing familial threats.

Allahabad High Court reinforces that the right to life under Article 21 includes the freedom of consenting adults to cohabit without state interference. The Court directed authorities to refrain from disturbing peaceful live-in relationships, setting a precedent for personal liberty protections.

Allahabad High Court reinforces that live-in relationships between consenting adults fall under the right to privacy, quashing an FIR under Section 87 BNS. The ruling aligns with Supreme Court precedent, protecting couples from familial or societal interference without legal basis.

The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 prevails over societal norms, directing police to evaluate threats faced by live-in couples from family members. The ruling mandates state protection for consenting adults, regardless of the relationship's legal status, reinforcing constitutional safeguards against extra-legal coercion.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that adults in live-in relationships are entitled to police protection under Article 21 solely by virtue of their voluntary cohabitation, irrespective of marital status. This affirms that the right to life and liberty includes the freedom to choose intimate partnerships without state-imposed formalities, directly shielding cohabiting adults from familial harassment and state inaction.