Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
Akanksha And Another – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ C. No. 35171 of 2025, Writ C. No. 34986 of 2025, Writ C. No. 35935 of 2025, Writ C. No. 37009 of 2025, Writ C. No. 38452 of 2025, Writ C. No. 38527 of 2025, Writ C. No. 38699 of 2025, Writ C. No. 38946 of 2025, Writ C. No. 39782 of 2025, Writ C. No. 40532 of 2025, Writ C. No. 40539 of 2025, Writ C. No. 41395 of 2025, Writ C. No. 42827 of 2025
Decided On : 17-12-2025
प्रयागराज उच्च न्यायालय ने कई रिट याचिकाओं को एक साथ सुना, जहां याचिकाकर्ता लिव-इन रिलेशनशिप में रहने वाले जोड़े थे, जिन्होंने निजी प्रतिवादी एवं परिवार से जीवन खतरे की आशंका जताते हुए पुलिस सुरक्षा की मांग की। (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) अदालत ने वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता को एमिकस क्यूरी नियुक्त किया। (!) एमिकस ने तर्क दिया कि लिव-इन रिलेशनशिप अवैध नहीं है, यह व्यक्तिगत पसंद है जो संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21, 19 एवं 14 से संरक्षित है; वयस्क सहमति से रह रहे जोड़े को हस्तक्षेप का कोई अधिकार नहीं। (!) (!) (!) (!) राज्य ने विरोध किया कि यह सामाजिक ताने-बाने के विरुद्ध है, विवाह ही जिम्मेदारी देता है, बिना विवाह सुरक्षा नहीं दी जा सकती; खतरा काल्पनिक है। (!) (!) (!) अदालत ने कहा कि विवाह पवित्र है, लिव-इन सामाजिक रूप से स्वीकृत नहीं किंतु अवैध भी नहीं; नैतिकता भिन्न हो सकती है किंतु कानून नैतिकता से अलग है। (!) (!) (!) वयस्क व्यक्तियों की पसंद एवं जीवन-स्वतंत्रता अनुच्छेद 21 के अंतर्गत सुरक्षित है; सहमति वाले विषमलैंगिक जोड़े कोई अपराध नहीं करते। (!) (!) (!) लिव-इन को विवाह जैसी स्थिति माना जा सकता है यदि लंबे समय तक सहवास हो; महिलाओं एवं बच्चों को संरक्षण का अधिकार है। (!) (!) (!) (!) अन्य उच्च न्यायालयों ने भी ऐसे जोड़ों को सुरक्षा प्रदान की। (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) राज्य के उद्धृत निर्णय प्रासंगिक नहीं। (!) (!) निष्कर्षतः, वयस्क याचिकाकर्ताओं को शांतिपूर्ण सहजीवन का अधिकार; कोई हस्तक्षेप नहीं; खतरे पर पुलिस सुरक्षा प्रदान करेगी। (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) याचिकाएं स्वीकार। (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. social stigma around live-in relationships acknowledged. (Para 1 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 2. petitioners seek protection from aggression. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. live-in relationships are lawful under article 21. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. social acceptance of live-in relationships debated. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. court recognizes legality of live-in relationships. (Para 13 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. rights under article 21 protect petitioners' choices. (Para 18 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. court's role in safeguarding individual liberties emphasized. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. based on previous cases, relationships have legal presumptions. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. importance of personal choice in human rights affirmed. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 10. various high court rulings protect live-in couples. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 11. judiciary's responsibility to clarify personal liberties. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 12. court asserts right to live together without marriage. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 13. final decision allowing protection reinforced. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel, appeared as Amicus Curiae and assisted by Sri Subir Lal, Shri Sausthav Guha, Sri Dhanraj Singh Yadav, Sri Ajay Kumar and Sri Abhay Kumar Shukla, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri Yogesh Kumar, Sri Pramit Kumar Pal and Sri Suresh Babu, learned Standing Counsels for the State of U.P., in all the writ petitions.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful life and also for a direction to provide protection.
3. A large number of petitions are being filed in this Court wherein the petitioners have decided to stay together in a live-in relationship and they claimed that they have an apprehension of life threat from the private respondents and the Police of concerned Districts have been approached by them, but no heed was paid, therefore, they have approached this Court by way of filing these writ petitions. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed that the Police of their District be directed to provide protection from private respondents as well as other family members/relatives/associates of the private respondents from causing any harm to the petitioners.
4. Since controversy involved in all the writ petitions are similar, hence they are being decided by a common judgment.
5. This Court, taking note of the involvement of the important issue in the matter, requested Mr. Shwetashwa Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, to assist this Court, as amicus curiae, which was accepted by the learned Senior Counsel and he argued the matter with the assistance of learned counsels named above.
6. Learned Senior Counsel started his argument that in India live-in relationship is not unlawful though, it is not accepted in many parts of the society because people think it may increase adultery. According to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, every citizen's right to marry is an alienable fundamental right. They can be married or be in a live-in relationship. It is their choice and no one can interfere in their peaceful living.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that Article 21 of the Constitution of India grants the personal choice of whether to marry or not and be in a live-in relationship. A major person has a right to marry a people of his/her choice or to live with his/her partner/they have a right to live out of the wedlock.
8. It is further argued by the learned Senior Counsel that live-in relationship may be considered to be an immoral act. Morality may differ from person to person. It is according to each person and perception whether a particular thing is moral or immoral. The live-in relationship is not prohibited by any law. The legality of the live-in relationship arose from Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, one can live anywhere and wi
Live-in relationships are legally recognized, and individuals have the right to choose partners, protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Live-in-relationships are recognized as part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, but lack specific legal recognition, necessitating legislative action for protection.
The right to live together in an interfaith relationship is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, guarding personal liberty against familial and societal coercion.
The right to life and personal liberty extends to individuals in live-in relationships, necessitating state protection against familial threats, irrespective of marriageability or societal norms.
The court emphasized the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, asserting protection for adults in a live-in relationship against familial threats, regardless of marriageable age.
The right to life and liberty is fundamental and must be protected, regardless of marital status or age, especially for individuals in live-in relationships.
Individuals in live-in relationships are entitled to protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, similar to those in formal marriages.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
