The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking protection filed by a couple in a live-in relationship, ruling that a married person cannot legally enter into such a relationship with a third party without first obtaining a decree of divorce from a competent court. The Court observed that the freedom of personal liberty is not absolute and cannot infringe upon the statutory rights of an existing spouse.
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the High Court filing Writ-C No. 43194 of 2025. They sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful life and requesting police protection. The petitioners contended that they are both adults and are living together as husband and wife. They claimed to have an apprehension of a threat to their lives from respondent no. 4.
Arguments of the Parties
Representing the petitioners, Advocate Rajesh Kumar Bind submitted that both individuals are majors and have chosen to live together. He argued that due to their relationship, they faced threats from private respondents and required the Court’s intervention for their safety.
Per contra, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submitted that the act of the petitioners was illegal because Petitioner No. 1 was already married to another individual and had not obtained a decree of divorce from a competent court.
The State counsel argued that the controversy was squarely covered by previous judgments of the Court, specifically citing:
- Asha Devi and Another vs. State of U.P. And Others (Writ-C No. 18743 of 2020)
- Bhagwati Pathwar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Three Others (Writ-C No. 7230 of 2024)
- Smt. Sonam and Another vs. State of U.P. and Three Others (Writ-C No. 36027 of 2025)
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, presiding over Court No. 78, heard the rival submissions. While acknowledging that the concept of “Gotra, Caste and Religion is left way back” and that consenting adults have a right to personal liberty, the Court emphasized that such rights are not unfettered.
The Court observed:
“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.”
The Court elaborated that a spouse has a statutory right to enjoy the company of their counterpart. Justice Singh stated:
“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.”
The Court held that if a petitioner is already married with a living spouse, they cannot legally be permitted to enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without seeking a divorce. The Judge noted, “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.”
Furthermore, the Court pointed out that there was nothing on record to show the petitioners were living as husband and wife akin to spouses for a significant period. No proof of joint accounts, financial security, joint property, or joint expenditure was produced.
The Court listed relationships that are not recognized as live-in relationships or relationships in the nature of marriage, including:
- Concubines.
- Polygamy/Bigamy (offences under Sections 494 & 495 IPC).
- Relationships during the subsistence of a first marriage without a decree of divorce.
- Persons not otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage.
Decision
The Court concluded that issuing a writ of mandamus in this case would be contrary to the law. Justice Singh remarked that the protection asked for “may amount to protection against commission of offence under Section 494/495 I.P.C.”
The Court held:
“The petitioners do not have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus.”
Consequently, the Court declined to issue any direction for protection to the petitioners who are in a live-in relationship without obtaining a decree of divorce. The writ petition was dismissed in light of the observations and the judgments in Asha Devi, Bhagwati Pathwar, and Smt. Sonam.
Case Details:
- Case Title: S And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Case No: WRIT-C No. 43194 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
- Counsel for Petitioner: Rajesh Kumar Bind
- Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C., Ashwani Kumar Tripathi (Addl. Chief Standing Counsel)
