Fundamental Right Must Be Protected Regardless Of Marriage Solemnization: Allahabad High Court Provides Police Protection To 13 Live-In Couples
The Allahabad High Court remarked that the concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, Allahabad High Court
While providing police protection to 13 live-in couples, the Allahabad High Court has emphasized that the fundamental right must be protected regardless of solemnization of marriage.
The Court was hearing a batch of 13 Writ Petitions of the live-in couples, seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing non-interference in their peaceful lives and also for a direction to provide protection.
A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed, “Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence. It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major, married or unmarried. Mere fact that the petitioners have not solemnized marriage, would not deprive them of their fundamental right as envisaged in the Constitution of India being citizens of India. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Constitutional's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct, under the Constitutional scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.”
The Bench remarked that the concept of a live-in relationship may not be acceptable to all, but it cannot be said that such a relationship is an illegal one or that living together without the sanctity of the marriage constitutes an offence.
Senior Advocate Swetashwa Agarwal appeared as Amicus Curiae assisted by Advocates Subir Lal, Sausthav Guha, Dhanraj Singh Yadav, Ajay Kumar, and Abhay Kumar Shukla for the Petitioners, while Standing Counsels Yogesh Kumar, Pramit Kumar Pal, and Suresh Babu appeared for the Respondents.
Background
A large number of Petitions were filed before the High Court wherein the Petitioners decided to stay together in a live-in relationship and they claimed that they have an apprehension of life threat from the private Respondents and the Police of concerned Districts have been approached by them, but no heed was paid, therefore, they approached the Court via Writ Petitions.
In all Petitions, the Petitioners prayed that the Police of their District be directed to provide protection from private Respondents as well as other family members/relatives/associates of the private Respondents from causing any harm to the Petitioners. Since controversy involved in all the Writ Petitions were similar, they were decided by a common Judgment.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “In none of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, relied upon by the State counsels, the live-in relationship was criticized/deprecated or refused to protect the live-in partners. On the contrary, it was recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments discussed above. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments manifest that the Apex Court has consistently respected the liberty of an individual who has attained the age of majority.”
The Court added that an individual on attaining majority is statutorily conferred a right to choose a partner, which if denied would not only affect his/her human rights but also his/her right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“Even under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman who, is in a domestic relationship has been provided protection, maintenance etc. The word "wife" has not been used under the said Act”, it further said.
The Court also observed that the Petitioners who are major have taken a decision to reside together without the sanctity of the marriage and it is not for the Courts to judge them on their decision.
“If the petitioners herein have not committed any offence, this Court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to. Therefore, with due respect to the judgments rendered by the co-ordinate Benches, who have denied protection to couples, who were in a live-in relationship, this Court is unable to adopt the same view”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the life and liberty of the individuals have to be protected, except according to procedure established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
“In the opinion of the Court, a person, who has attained the age of majority as per Section 3 of the Majority Act, is able to understand his/her welfare and, therefore, he/she could not be restricted to go wherever he/she likes. He/she is free to live with anybody and could not be restrained from doing so”, it said.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that Petitioners are at liberty to live together peacefully and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living and that the right to life is a fundamental life ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution wherein it is provided that no person shall be deprived of his right to life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
“In case, any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP concerned with certified copy of this order and the Police Officer after being satisfied that the petitioners are major and willingly living together, will provide immediate protection to the petitioners. If the petitioners are educated and they produce their educational certificates and other certificates admissible under law, from which it is evident that they have attained the majority and they are living with their free will then no Police Officer shall take any coercive action against them unless an F.I.R. is registered against them in respect of any offence whatsoever. If they do not have any documentary proof regarding age and they come from rural background and or illiterate/semi-literate, the Police Officer can subject such boy or girl to ossification test to verify their correct age and he can also follow the other procedure permissible under the law”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- ABC v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:226669)
