The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has declined to grant police protection to a couple in a live-in relationship where both parties are already married to other spouses. The court observed that granting such protection could amount to protecting individuals against the commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, in a recent judgment, held that individuals who have not obtained a decree of divorce from a competent court cannot legally enter into a live-in relationship with a third person during the subsistence of their marriage.
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the State respondents not to interfere in their peaceful lives and to provide them with protection.
The petitioners submitted that they were living together as husband and wife and alleged a threat to their lives from a private respondent.
Arguments of the Parties
The Counsel for the petitioners argued that as two consenting adults, they had the right to live together and that their personal liberty should be protected from interference by third parties or the state.
Per contra, Sri Suresh Babu, the learned Standing Counsel for the State, vehemently opposed the petition. He submitted that both petitioners were already married to different individuals. He argued that their act was illegal as they had not obtained a decree of divorce from a court of competent jurisdiction. The State further contended that the controversy was squarely covered by several previous judgments of the High Court, including Asha Devi and Another vs. State of U.P. And Others (2020), Bhagwati Pathwar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Three Others (2024), and Smt. Sonam and Another vs. State of U.P. and Three Others (2025).
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The court acknowledged that while the concept of Gotra, Caste, and Religion has been left behind in modern relationships, the Right to Personal Liberty is not absolute.
The court noted:
“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.”
On the legal status of the petitioners’ relationship, the court observed:
“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.”
The court further highlighted that the petitioners failed to produce any evidence such as joint accounts, financial security, joint property, or joint expenditure to substantiate that they were “akin to spouse.”
Referring to the Indian Penal Code and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Bench clarified that:
- Concubines cannot maintain a relationship in the nature of marriage.
- Polygamy and bigamous marriages (marrying someone while already married) are criminal offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC.
- Till a decree of divorce is passed, the marriage subsists.
The court emphasized the limitations of issuing a writ of mandamus:
“The protection as being asked, may amount to protection against commission of offence under Section 494/495 I.P.C. It is well settled law that writ of mandamus can not be issued contrary to law or to defeat a statutory provision including penal provision. The petitioners do not have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court concluded that the petitioners did not have a “legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right” to ask for mandamus. Consequently, the court declined to issue any direction for protection in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, the court added a rider that if the petitioners are subjected to actual violence, they may approach the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) or Superintendent of Police (SP) concerned. The authorities are expected to verify the contents of such representations and “do the needful in accordance with law to secure the life and limb of the petitioners.”
The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Anju And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Case Number: WRIT-C No. 10593 of 2026
- Bench: Bench Vivek Kumar Singh
- Date: March 20, 2026
