PRAYAGRAJ:\u00a0<\/em>In a\u00a0judgment dated 20 March 2026,\u00a0Justice Vivek Kumar Singh<\/strong>\u00a0of the\u00a0Allahabad High Court<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0refused 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court observed: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn 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,\u201d <\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n But it also clarified that rights are not absolute. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court then shifted focus to the rights of a legally wedded spouse, highlighting that individual freedom cannot override statutory protections<\/strong> available under marriage laws. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It further held: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Taking a strict legal view, the Court clearly stated that entering into a live-in relationship<\/strong> without dissolving an existing marriage is not permissible<\/strong> in law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It observed: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Where a valid marriage is already subsisting, any parallel relationship not only lacks legal recognition<\/strong> but may also attract consequences under criminal law<\/strong> relating to bigamy<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> in the nature of marriage, and therefore cannot seek constitutional protection<\/strong> from the Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, refusing relief, the Court held that the petitioners \u201cdo not have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus.\u201d <\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, just 5 days after this single-judge bench ruling, a Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir<\/strong> and Justice Tarun Saxena<\/strong> took a completely different approach in a similar live-in matter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench clearly stated: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Relying on this principle, the Division Bench granted legal protection<\/strong> 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also placed a clear responsibility on the police authorities, specifically directing the\u00a0Superintendent of Police<\/strong>\u00a0to ensure the\u00a0safety and security<\/strong>\u00a0of the couple and to take necessary steps\u00a0in accordance with\u00a0law to protect their life and liberty.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Click Here To Read Entire Judgment<\/a><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Provision<\/strong> <\/td> Purpose<\/strong> <\/td> How Applied In This Case<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr> Article 226 of Constitution of India<\/strong> <\/td> Empowers High Courts to issue writs like mandamus <\/td> Petitioners sought protection under this provision <\/td><\/tr> Writ of Mandamus<\/strong> <\/td> Court order directing authority to perform legal duty <\/td> Denied as petitioners had no enforceable legal right <\/td><\/tr> Section 494 IPC<\/strong> <\/td> Bigamy \u2013 marrying again during lifetime of spouse <\/td> Court held such relationship may attract offence <\/td><\/tr> Section 495 IPC<\/strong> <\/td> Concealment of previous marriage in bigamy <\/td> Reinforces illegality of second relationship <\/td><\/tr> Hindu Marriage Act,<\/a> 1955 (Section 17)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/td> Declares bigamous marriage void and punishable <\/td> Applied to show second relationship is illegal <\/td><\/tr> Concept of Live-in Relationship<\/strong> <\/td> Recognized only if parties are legally eligible to marry <\/td> Court denied recognition due to subsisting marriage <\/td><\/tr> Personal Liberty (Article 21<\/a>)<\/strong>\u00a0<\/td> Right to choose partner and live freely <\/td> Limited when it conflicts with spouse\u2019s legal rights <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways\u00a0<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n