The Allahabad High Court intervened on safeguarding the personal liberty of twelve live-in couples across Uttar Pradesh who allegedly faced life-threatening intimidation from their families.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh issued the directive after hearing twelve separate petitions from women who argued that local police authorities had failed to provide adequate security despite their choosing to reside with partners of their own free will. The court ruled that, consenting adults possess an inherent constitutional right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which remains enforceable regardless of marital status. By allowing these writ petitions under Article 226, the Bench commanded the police to verify the ages of the individuals and provide immediate protection, ensuring that those who have attained the age of majority can determine their own residence and domestic arrangements without unlawful interference from third parties.
This judgment reinforces a legislative framework that has increasingly acknowledged evolving social realities over the past two decades.
The High Court specifically referenced the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which extends legal remedies to women in “relationships in the nature of marriage,” thereby providing statutory recognition to non-marital domestic unions. Justice Singh clarified that while societal or moral evaluations of live-in arrangements may vary, such choices are not prohibited by law and deserve the same dignity and safety as formal marriages. The court further noted that long-term cohabitation can lead to a legal presumption of marriage, a rule designed to protect the rights of women and children within these partnerships.
To ensure compliance, the court authorised the use of ossification tests for age verification where documentary evidence is absent, underlining the State's duty to protect citizens from violence regardless of their relationship status.
India’s legal stance towards live-in relationships has been shaped by several landmark Supreme Court rulings that have consistently prioritised individual autonomy over traditional social norms. Starting with significant observations in 2006 and further clarified in the 2010 Khushboo v. Kanniammal case, the judiciary has maintained that while live-in relationships may be considered “immoral” by some conservative sections of society, they do not constitute a criminal offence. The Supreme Court has previously established that the right to choose a partner is an intrinsic facet of human dignity.
Although India does not have a specific statute solely dedicated to live-in unions, the 2005 Domestic Violence Act and subsequent judicial precedents have ensured that partners in such relationships can claim maintenance and that children born from these unions are considered legitimate with rights to ancestral property.