Back
Shields Live-in Couple from Father's Fury: 'Akin to Marriage'
In a strong affirmation of personal autonomy, the has granted police protection to a young couple in a live-in relationship, ruling that cannot be threatened or interfered with by family members. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, in his order dated , in , underscored that such relationships, formalized by a , enjoy constitutional safeguards akin to marriage.
From Secret Romance to Courtroom Battle
The petitioners, Kartik (born ) and his partner (born ), have been together since . Now living as a couple, they formalized their bond with a on . However, the woman's father (respondent no. 4) disapproved vehemently, issuing threats of violence that left the duo fearing for their safety. Filed under and , the petition sought a for immediate protection from the State and police authorities.
This case highlights a growing tension between generational expectations and individual choice, especially as live-in arrangements gain legal recognition, as noted in media reports covering the judgment.
Petitioners' Plea: Liberty Under Siege
The couple's counsel argued that as majors, they hold an unfettered right to cohabit under , which guarantees life and . The father's threats, they claimed, directly jeopardized these . Emphasizing their voluntary agreement, the lawyers positioned the relationship as a responsible, recognized union, drawing parallels to marital privacy. No counter-arguments from the respondents appear in the record, with the State's counsel accepting notice without opposition.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reasoning: Precedents Seal the Deal
Justice Banerjee swiftly affirmed the petitioners' status as , invoking precedents to dismantle any familial overreach. In Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala (2018), the apex court held that majors have the right to live together sans marriage, a principle echoed in the , which legitimizes live-in ties.
Further, Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. ((2018) 16 SCC 368) was cited to stress that societal prejudices cannot curtail freedoms or liberty, preserving "one’s very individualistic identity." The bench equated the live-in setup to marriage in essence—valid between consenting individuals regardless of caste, creed, or faith—rendering parental interference unlawful.
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
-
On Adult Autonomy :
"Since both petitioners are born in the years
and
respectively, they are
who have all rights to choose and reside with their respective partner(s) as per their individual choice/ desire with no interference from anyone."
-
Live-in as Marriage-Like :
"So the Live-In Relationship which the petitioners are in, is in a way akin to marriage, though not legally. And at the end of the day, marriage in India is recognised if it is inter se two consenting individuals..."
-
No Room for Threats :
"no one, be it their parents, including respondent no.4... have any right and/ or authority to cause any hinderance and/ or interference of any kind to them, much less threaten their life and/ or liberty."
Protection Ordered: A Lifeline with Strings Attached
The petition was allowed outright. The couple can seek aid from SHO, PS: Daryaganj (+8750870421) or Beat Constable Babudhan (+9982951168). If relocating, they must notify the new SHO within three days for seamless protection. This directive not only shields the petitioners but sets a template for future cases, reinforcing that live-in relationships—bolstered by agreements—warrant the same state protection as traditional marriages, free from vigilante kin.
As reports note, this ruling reiterates Delhi courts' evolving stance: love, when consensual and adult, trumps familial wrath.
