HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Smt. Anju And Another .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 81 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Suresh Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

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. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are living together as husband and wife and they have apprehension of life threat from respondent no.4.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State opposed and submitted that both the petitioners are already married and the act of the petitioners are illegal as petitioners have not obtained decree of divorce from the competent court having jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the present controversy is squarely covered with the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 18743 of 2020 (Asha Devi and Another vs. State of U.P. And Others), decided on 01.12.2020, Writ-C No. 7230 of 2024 (Bhagwati Pathwar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Three Others), decided on 14.3.2024 and judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 36027 of 2025 (Smt. Sonam and Another vs. State of U.P. and Three Others), decided on 07.11.2025, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard rival submissions of both the sides.

6. In the relationship of a marriage or in a live-in relationship, there must be two consenting adults human beings. The concept of Gotra, Caste and Religion is left way back. No one has the right to interfere in the personal liberty of the two adults, not even the parents of two adults can interfere in their relationship, but, the Right to Freedom or Right to Personal Liberty is not an absolute or unfettered right, it is qualified by some restrictions also. The freedom of one person extincts where the statutory right of another person starts. A spouse has statutory right to enjoy the company of his or her counterpart and he/she cannot be deprived of that right for the sake of personal liberty and no such protection can be granted to infringe statutory right of the other spouse, hence, the freedom of one person cannot encroach or overweigh the legal right of another person. If the petitioners are already married and have their spouse alive, he/she cannot be legally permitted to enter into live-in relationship with a third person without seeking divorce from the earlier spouse. He/she first has to obtain the decree of divorce from the court of competent jurisdiction before solemnizing marriage or entering into living in a relationship out of their legal marriage.

7. While applying the principles laid down in various pronouncements by Hon'ble the Apex Court, it gives guidelines to the fact that couple must be of legal age to marry and qualified to enter into legal marriage including being unmarried and they must be akin to spouse for significant period of time. There is nothing on record primarily to show that they are living as husband-wife or they have solemnized marriage after obtaining divorce from the earlier marriage. Neither proof of joint account, financial security, joint property or joint expenditure is produced before this Court nor any document is produced before this Court to substantiate that the petitioners are akin to spouse.

8. Following relationship have not been recognized or approved as live-in relationship or relationship in the nature of marriage. This list is not exhaustive but merely illustrative :-

"(a) Concubine can not maintain relationship in the nature of marriage.

(b) Polygamy, that is a relationship or practice of having more than one wife or husband at the same time, or a relatio