In a judgment dated 25 March 2026, the Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/strong>, led by Justice J.J. Munir<\/strong> and Justice Tarun Saxena<\/strong>, made it clear that personal morality cannot be used to criminalize consenting adults<\/strong> living together. The case involved a man and a woman who chose to stay in a live-in relationship<\/strong> despite the man being married, and were facing legal and family pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that both individuals are adults<\/strong> and are living together out of their own free will<\/strong>. The woman\u2019s mother had filed an FIR<\/a> alleging that her daughter was taken away, but the Court observed that the woman herself confirmed she is a major and willingly staying in the relationship.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Addressing the argument that the man being married makes the relationship illegal, the Court clearly stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The judges strongly emphasized that courts cannot act based on societal opinions or moral judgments. In a crucial observation, the Court said: “Morality and law have to be kept apart.”<\/em><\/strong> It further reinforced this principle by stating:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “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.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The woman had also approached the police, stating that she feared for her life, as her family was against the relationship and had threatened her with serious harm, including possible honour killing<\/strong>. The Court took this threat seriously and noted that the police had failed to act on her complaint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Highlighting the duty of law enforcement, the Court observed that protecting adults who choose to live together is the responsibility of the police<\/strong>. It referred to the Supreme Court judgment and stressed that authorities must ensure safety in such situations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recognizing the urgency and seriousness, the Court granted immediate protection<\/strong> to the couple. It ordered that they should not be arrested and clearly directed that no harm should be caused to them by the woman\u2019s family. The Court also restrained the family from contacting or interfering in their lives in any way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, the Court made the Superintendent of Police personally responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the couple<\/strong>, showing how seriously such threats are being viewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case reinforces a fundamental principle: law is based on evidence and legal provisions<\/strong>, not emotions, assumptions, or societal morality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 87, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Deals with offences relating to abduction\/compelling or inducing a woman<\/td> FIR under this section, but Court found the woman is a major acting voluntarily, so no offence made out and arrest stayed.<\/td><\/tr> Article 21, Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Protects right to life and personal liberty, including choice of partner<\/td> Court upheld the couple\u2019s right to live together without interference.<\/td><\/tr> Article 19(1)(d) & 19(1)(e), Constitution of India<\/strong><\/td> Freedom of movement and residence<\/td> Applied in spirit to affirm that adults can choose where and with whom to live<\/td><\/tr> Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192<\/strong><\/td> Supreme Court guidelines to prevent honour killing and protect couples<\/td> Court relied on this to impose duty on police to ensure safety of the couple facing threats from family<\/td><\/tr> Live-in Relationship (Judicially Recognized Principle)<\/strong><\/td> Recognizes that consenting adults can cohabit without marriage<\/td> Court clearly held that such a relationship is not a criminal offence, even if the man is married<\/td><\/tr> Criminal Procedure \u2013 Protection from Arrest (Interim Relief)<\/strong><\/td> Courts can grant protection from coercive action during pendency of case<\/td> Court granted interim protection from arrest to prevent misuse of criminal law<\/td><\/tr> Police Duty of Protection (General Legal Obligation)<\/strong><\/td> Police are obligated to protect citizens facing threats<\/td> Court made SP personally responsible for ensuring safety, reinforcing accountability<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n