The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ruled that a married man staying in a consensual live-in relationship with an adult woman does not constitute a criminal offence. The Court emphasized that social opinions and morality cannot guide judicial action when no legal offence is established, granting interim protection from arrest to the couple.
Background
The case involved two petitioners who are adults staying together in a live-in relationship. According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the mother of the first petitioner, the woman is 18 years of age. However, the informant alleged that she was taken away by “blandishment” by the second petitioner.
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking protection, stating that the first petitioner’s parents and family members were averse to their union and had threatened them with death. They expressed fear of “honour killing” and claimed that an application made to the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, had yielded no action.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioners argued that both parties are adults living together by choice and their lives are at risk.
On the other hand, counsel appearing for the caveator (the informant) raised a legal objection. He pointed out that the second petitioner is a married man. Based on this, he contended that it is an offence for him to stay with another woman.
Court’s Analysis
A Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena rejected the argument that the relationship constituted a criminal offence.
The Court observed:
“There is no offence of the kind where a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, by consent of the other person, can be prosecuted for any offence, whatsoever. Morality and law have to be kept apart. If there is no offence under the law made out, social opinions and morality will not guide the action of the Court for protecting the rights of citizens.”
The Bench further noted that the police have a duty to protect adults living together. Referring to the Supreme Court’s mandate in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others, (2018) 7 SCC 192, the Court held that particular obligations are cast upon the Superintendent of Police to ensure the safety of such couples.
Decision
The High Court admitted the writ petition and issued the following directions:
- Stay of Arrest: The Court ordered that until further orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 4 of 2026, registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, at Police Station Jaitipur, District Shahjahanpur.
- Restraint Order: The fourth respondent (the informant) and all family members of the first petitioner are restrained from causing harm to the parties and are prohibited from entering their home or contacting them directly or electronically.
- Police Protection: The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, has been made personally responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the petitioners.
The matter has been adjourned to April 8, 2026, for further orders and the filing of counter affidavits.
Case Details
- Case Title: Anamika and another vs. State of U.P. and others
- Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. – 3799 of 2026
- Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena
- Date: March 25, 2026
