Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Living together is not a crime and is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution Multiple sources emphasize that the right to live with a partner, including in a live-in relationship, is a fundamental right under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. For instance, ["Akanksha vs State Of U.P. - Allahabad"] states, Article 21 of the Constitution of India grants the personal choice of whether to marry or not and be in a live-in relationship, and ["Pooja VS State of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 684"] affirms, Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together. Courts have recognized live-in relationships as a facet of the right to life, with judgments indicating that such relationships are neither illegal nor unlawful (["Kajal Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Saloni Yadav VS State Of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"]). The Supreme Court has also acknowledged that living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offense (["Kajal Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]).
Legal recognition and protection extend to all individuals, regardless of gender or marital status Courts have upheld the rights of individuals in live-in relationships, including same-gender couples (["Pooja VS State of Punjab - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 684"]) and those living together despite societal or familial disapproval (["PRIYA AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"], ["KAJAL KUMARI AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"]). Several judgments explicitly state that the relationship's social acceptance does not diminish its legal protection (["GURPARTAP SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"], ["NIRMALA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"]). Additionally, courts have granted protection under Article 21 to persons living in live-in relationships, even if the relationship is not universally accepted or involves minors (["KAJAL KUMARI AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"], ["GURPARTAP SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"]).
Living together in a live-in relationship is distinct from marriage and is not prohibited by law The courts clarify that living together without marriage is not illegal. As per ["Alfiya Azmil VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], the concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence. The Supreme Court has recognized live-in relationships as permissible and protected (["Kajal Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]).
Protection under Article 21 is available to all persons, including minors and those not yet of marriageable age Several judgments highlight that minors or individuals below the age of marriage can seek protection under Article 21 if they are living together consensually (["Priya Suman vs State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"], ["NIKITA D/O SHRI MURARILAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]). Courts have emphasized that the right to life and liberty includes the right to choose one's partner, provided the individuals are major or living with consent (["Alfiya Azmil VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Saloni Yadav VS State Of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"]).
Courts have issued directives for protection of individuals in live-in relationships against threats or familial opposition Many cases involve courts granting protection to persons living in live-in arrangements, especially against threats from family members or societal pressures (["PRIYA AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"], ["KAJAL KUMARI AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"], ["GURPARTAP SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"]). These orders affirm that such relationships are entitled to protection as a fundamental right, and the state or private parties cannot infringe upon this right arbitrarily.
Analysis and Conclusion:The collected judgments and legal opinions clearly establish that living together in a live-in relationship is a right protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is not a crime, nor is it prohibited by law, and individuals in such relationships are entitled to legal protection and safeguards. The courts have consistently recognized the autonomy of adults to choose their partners and have extended protection regardless of societal or familial disapproval. Therefore, living together is a fundamental right, and the assertion that it is a crime or outside constitutional protections is unfounded.
In today's evolving society, more couples are choosing live-in relationships over traditional marriage. But a common question arises: Living together is not a crime and covered under – is this true? Many worry about societal stigma, family interference, or legal repercussions. This blog explores the constitutional backing for cohabitation, drawing from landmark judgments, while highlighting nuances and exceptions. Note: This is general information, not legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your specific situation.
of the Indian Constitution guarantees the . Courts have repeatedly affirmed that living together outside marriage falls within this ambit. Living together in a relationship outside the formal institution of marriage is recognized as a under , and such conduct is not a crime.
Key points include:- The right to live together is protected under .- Courts recognize live-in relationships as part of the .- Cohabitation without marriage is not illegal.
This protection stems from the principle that personal choices in relationships, as long as they involve , are shielded from state interference. Every person in the territory of India has an inherent and indefeasible to life flowing from of India’s constitution, and the State is duty-bound to protect life.
Indian courts, including the and , have consistently upheld the legality of live-in relationships. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, the observed: Living together is an aspect of the .
Another ruling clarifies: Living together without the sanctity of marriage is not illegal and cannot be considered an offence.
Love, attraction, and fondness have no boundaries, and not even the boundary of gender. of the Constitution of India does not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together.
These pronouncements emphasize that the right to choose a partner and cohabit is constitutionally protected, irrespective of marital status or societal views.
Live-in partners are entitled to state protection under , particularly from familial or societal threats. The protection of life and liberty under of the Constitution prevails, even in cases of individuals in live-in relationships facing familial threats, emphasizing state responsibility to ensure safety.
Courts have directed in such scenarios, reinforcing that the state must safeguard personal liberty.
While live-in relationships are generally protected, certain scenarios limit this right. Courts distinguish based on consent, legality, and context.
Protection applies primarily to . Non-consensual cohabitation may invite scrutiny. In cases deemed immoral or illegal, does not extend cover. For instance: In our opinion, there is no not even the right guaranteed under of the Constitution of India that would provide a standing for the petitioner to maintain this . The Constitution of India or any other law in India does not sanctify an immoral act.
Here, a relationship involving a married woman and lacking legal sanctity was denied protection, prioritizing .
Interfaith live-in couples may face additional hurdles. Compliance with laws like the is crucial. Whether protection to petitioners as husband and wife or as live-in-relationship can be granted... when their living together may constitute offences under ?
The court dismissed protection due to non-compliance and lack of evidence, stressing: Compliance with the and evidence of a are crucial factors in seeking protection for interfaith live-in relationships.
Under the , live-in relationships must prove a '' and '' for remedies like maintenance. The court stated that living together is a right to life and therefore not ‘illegal’. ... Held, No marriage like relationship existing between parties.
Failure to provide evidence, such as duration of cohabitation or neighbor testimony, can bar claims. means, the relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time, lived together in a .
Live-in status doesn't equate to marriage under laws like the . In divorce proceedings, prolonged separation fulfills conditions like Section 14, but mutual consent under is preferred. Even after filing of the regular suit till date they are not living together. Thus, the requirement of is also complete.Rekha Devi VS Abhishek Misra
Mental cruelty or irretrievable breakdown may lead to divorce if living together is untenable. Although, the wife is ready to reside with the husband but the husband is not willing to keep her. In such circumstances, there is no chance of living together.
The state must uphold dignity in non-marital cohabitation, and legal reforms could enhance clarity.
In summary, living together is typically not a crime and is covered under , as affirmed by courts: Individuals above 18 have the right to live as they desire, including in live-in relationships, which do not violate any law and are protected under .
However, exceptions for illegal, immoral, or non-compliant cases underscore the need for caution. Couples should prioritize consent, legality, and evidence. For personalized guidance, consult a legal expert.
Key Takeaways:- protects consensual adult cohabitation.- Courts provide safety from interference.- Navigate exceptions like interfaith laws or DV Act proofs carefully.
Stay informed, live freely – within the law.
#LiveInRelationships, #Article21, #IndianConstitution
State of Uttar Pradesh and others) vide order dated 28.4.2023 and it has been noticed that in Muslim Law live in relationship is not permitted. Relevant paragraph 21 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:- "21. ... In such view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to grant any indulgence in the present case on the ground that the petitioners are in live in relationship. We find that it is not a fit case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the ....
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. ... To avoid these responsibilities and to enjoy the benefit of living together, the concept of living together has come into picture. Live-in relationship provides for a life free from responsibilities and commitment unlike in a marriage. ... It is also submitted that Article 14 of....
Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together. ... Their claim of fondness for each other and living together in a live-in relationship prima facie does not violate any provision of law in force. Love, attraction, and fondness have no boundaries, and not even the boundary of gender. ... 21 of the Constitution of India. ... As the determination of this case has ....
In the case at hand, the petitioner No.2 has not yet attained the age of 21 years, therefore, he not being of marriageable age, the petitioners cannot be deprived to live together in such type of relationship. 9. ... State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 The concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence. ......
In the case at hand, the petitioner No.2 has not yet attained the age of 21 years, therefore, he not being of marriageable age, the petitioners cannot be deprived to live together in such type of relationship. 9. ... State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 The concept of a live in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of marriage constitutes an offence. ......
relationship comes within the ambit of right to life enshrined under Article-21 of the Constitution of India. ... We believe that it is a social problem which can be uprooted socially and not by the intervention of the Writ Court in the garb of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless harassment is established beyond doubt. ... The Supreme Court observed that a man and a woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence. It sa....
(ii) Whether protection to petitioners as husband and wife or as live-in-relationship can be granted in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when their living together may constitute offences under Sections 494/495 I.P.C. ?" ... 21. In view of the aforesaid case law the petitioners did not disclose that they are in any domestic relationship or voluntarily living held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period ....
with a married woman did not commit a crime. ... In our opinion, there is no fundamental right not even the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India that would provide a standing for the petitioner to maintain this habeas corpus petition. The Constitution of India or any other law in India does not sanctify an immoral act. ... Using any form of torture for extracting any kind of information would neither be ‘right nor just nor fair’ and, therefore, would be imperm....
However, petitioners are now living together in ‘live-in relationship. ... Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks protection of life and liberty of the petitioners by contending that both of them are major and are living together in a ‘live-in relationship’ against the wishes of the private respondents and seek appropriate protection from the authorities. ... The only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any difference? In my considered opinion, it would #H....
Both petitioners are already married to some other persons, however, are now living together in ‘live-in relationship’. ... Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks protection of life and liberty of the petitioners by contending that both of them are major and are living together in a ‘live-in relationship’ against the wishes of the private respondents and seek appropriate protection from the authorities ... The only difference is that the relationship is not universally accepted. Would that make any d....
A child's heart starts beating between the second and third week of pregnancy, which means a human being has already started to develop in the metra of mother. It follows that the fetus will not be provided with the benefit of Article 21, until it comes into existence, which may happen when the child comes out of the metra of the mother alive. However, a fetus is not covered under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, it does not mean that the fetus is not subject to receive any of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
The court stated that living together is a right to life and therefore not ‘illegal’. It is stated that the respondent being the founder and Chairman of IAHS was earning crores of rupees by way of sale of seeds, plants and also was engaged in dealing of lands and properties. On the other hand, it is stated that the petitioner had no source of income to maintain herself. The court held that living together is not illegal in the eyes of law even if it is considered immoral in the eyes of the conservative Indian Society.
Even after filing of the regular suit till date they are not living together. Thus, the requirement of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act is also complete.
Even after filing of the regular suit till date they are not living together. Thus, the requirement of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act is also complete.
Although, the wife is ready to reside with the husband but the husband is not willing to keep her. In such circumstances, there is no chance of living together.
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
