Does personal liberty under Article 21 allow a person to enter a live-in relationship despite an existing marriage?
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that personal freedom is not absolute and cannot override existing marital rights under law.
PRAYAGRAJ: In a judgment dated 20 March 2026, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court refused protection to a live-in couple because both partners were already legally married to other spouses. The Court made it clear that such a relationship cannot be protected under law.
The Court observed:
“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 it also clarified that rights are not absolute.
The Court then shifted focus to the rights of a legally wedded spouse, highlighting that individual freedom cannot override statutory protections available under marriage laws.
It further held:
“The freedom of one person ceases 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.”
Taking a strict legal view, the Court clearly stated that entering into a live-in relationship without dissolving an existing marriage is not permissible in law.
It 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.”
The Court also examined whether such a relationship could qualify as a legally recognized live-in relationship. It noted that for any live-in relationship to receive legal protection, the parties must be eligible to enter into a lawful marriage in the first place.
Where a valid marriage is already subsisting, any parallel relationship not only lacks legal recognition but may also attract consequences under criminal law relating to bigamy.
In this context, the Court emphasized that relationships formed during the subsistence of an existing marriage cannot claim the status or protection of a relationship in the nature of marriage, and therefore cannot seek constitutional protection from the Court.
Finally, refusing relief, the Court held that the petitioners “do not have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus.”
However, just 5 days after this single-judge bench ruling, a Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena took a completely different approach in a similar live-in matter.
The Bench clearly stated:
“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.”
It further emphasized that when no offence is made out under law, courts cannot allow social opinions or moral views to influence their decisions while protecting individual rights.
The Division Bench also directed that protection must be ensured, making it clear that safeguarding consenting adults is the responsibility of the police, and accordingly granted interim protection from arrest and any harm.
Relying on this principle, the Division Bench granted legal protection to the couple. It directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested and ensured that no harm is caused to them by any person, including family members.
The Court also placed a clear responsibility on the police authorities, specifically directing the Superintendent of Police to ensure the safety and security of the couple and to take necessary steps in accordance with law to protect their life and liberty.
Click Here To Read Entire Judgment
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved
| Law / Provision | Purpose | How Applied In This Case |
| Article 226 of Constitution of India | Empowers High Courts to issue writs like mandamus | Petitioners sought protection under this provision |
| Writ of Mandamus | Court order directing authority to perform legal duty | Denied as petitioners had no enforceable legal right |
| Section 494 IPC | Bigamy – marrying again during lifetime of spouse | Court held such relationship may attract offence |
| Section 495 IPC | Concealment of previous marriage in bigamy | Reinforces illegality of second relationship |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 17) | Declares bigamous marriage void and punishable | Applied to show second relationship is illegal |
| Concept of Live-in Relationship | Recognized only if parties are legally eligible to marry | Court denied recognition due to subsisting marriage |
| Personal Liberty (Article 21) | Right to choose partner and live freely | Limited when it conflicts with spouse’s legal rights |
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Anju And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Case Number: Writ – C No. 10593 of 2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
- Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:58670
- Date of Judgment: 20 March 2026
- Counsels:
- For Petitioners: Pankaj Kumar Tripathi
- For Respondents: C.S.C. (Standing Counsel for State)
Key Takeaways
- Court clearly upheld that a legally wedded spouse’s rights cannot be ignored in the name of personal liberty.
- Live-in relationships involving already married individuals are not legally protected and may attract bigamy charges.
- Spouse’s marital rights, including companionship and exclusivity, have been judicially recognized and reinforced.
- Courts will not grant protection if the relationship itself violates existing marriage laws.
- This judgment highlights the need to prevent misuse of “personal liberty” arguments in cases that undermine lawful marriages and legal rights of spouses.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.