CASE NAME: Smt. Pushpa Budhiram Rajbhar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
CASE NUMBER: WRIT-C No. 35171 of 2025 and associated writ petitions.
COURT: The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
DATE: 17 December 2025
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
FACTS
A series of writ petitions has been filed in the Allahabad High Court by various couples who had been cohabiting in live-in relationships. All petitioners in this case are majors who alleged that their life and liberty are in grave danger because of their relationships as a result of opposition from their family members, relatives, and associates. According to their claim, police protection was unfruitful despite their initial pleas for help. Thus, the petitioners turned to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, asking for directions to prohibit intervention in their peaceful cohabitation and police protection against any harm. Given the nature of the issues raised in the given cases, all the petitions were heard together and decided on a common judgment. To ensure a proper adjudication of the cited matters, the Court appointed a Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae.
ISSUES
- Whether the adults living in a consensual live-in relationship can claim the right to protection of life and personal liberty under Article21 of the Indian Constitution.
- Whether live-in relationships, even if not legally approved by certain sections of society, can be termed illegal or unlawful.
- Whether the State has the power to deny security force-protection to couples living together only because the couples are not legally married.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
- Article 19 of the Constitution of India – Freedom of choice and movement
- Section 3 of the Majority Act of 1875
- Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Section 119(1), The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER
The petitioners argued that live-in relationships between consenting adults cannot be said to be illegal under the law and fall clearly within the guarantee of Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution. They also argued that morality and legality are not the same thing, and therefore, what is immoral cannot be illegal. The plea is that the petitioners are majors, freely living together, and that they have not committed any offence. Therefore, any possible threat to their life and liberty demands immediate intervention of the State. Decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts recognizing the concept of live-in relationship and freedom and autonomy of individuals are cited.
RESPONDENTS
The State is opposing these petitions, and its rationale is that live-in relationships disrupt the fabric of society and the age-old institution of marriage. It is well-submitted that live-in relations are not of any legal sanctity and stability, and if any protection is given, it will amount to foisting an unconstitutional burden of respecting the said relations.
The State also alleged that the apprehension of threat was too vague and only in cases involving a legal valid marriage or in cases where there would be a real and immediate danger would police protection be justified.
ANALYSIS
The Allahabad High Court conducted an in-depth analysis of the constitutional provisions and judicial precedents on the issue of personal freedom, autonomy, and the live-in relationship. It is pertinent to note that the court reaffirmed that the right to choose the partner and the way of life is the essence of Article 21. Based on the landmark cases like Lata Singh vs. State of U.P AIR 2006 SC 2522, Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma AIR 2014 SC 309, and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M AIR 2018 SC 1933, the court stated that the cohabitation between consenting adults cannot be termed as any offense, even if deemed immoral by some communities. The Court dismissed the contention that protection might be denied inasmuch as the parties are not married, asserting that the constitutional guarantees cannot be reduced in scope by social morality. It was further observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has recognized relationships ‘in the nature of marriage’ that gave a legal sanctioning to ‘live-in’ relationships. Notably, the Court clarified that the duty of the police to protect life and liberty is triggered as soon as the threat appears real, regardless of the relationship status of the persons involved.
JUDGEMENT
All the writ petitions were allowed by the High Court. The court argued that the petitioners are majors and are entitled to coexist peacefully without any interference. The court ordered that nobody can interfere with the peaceful living of the petitioners and in the case of any disturbance/threat, the petitioners can contact the concerned Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP. Upon finding that all the petitioners are majors living together voluntarily, relief shall be granted automatically. No coercive measure will be taken against the petitioners unless a cognizable offence is registered against them. There was no order as to costs.
CONCLUSION
This judgment once again upholds the dominance of constitutional morality over social morality. With the judgment extending the protection to live-in couples, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated the fact that the right to life, liberty, and freedom cannot be withdrawn on the basis of moral disapproval by society. This judgment helps to strengthen the jurisprudence related to live-in relations.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: ARCHITHA MANIKANTAN
