Allahabad High Court Refuses Police Protection to Live-In Couple: Freedom vs. Legal Rights
Background of the Case
The Allahabad High Court, in a recent ruling dated 7 November, declined to grant police protection to a couple claiming to be in a live-in relationship. The petition was filed by Sonam and her alleged partner (referred to as petitioner no. 2), who sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the woman’s husband and the police from interfering in their lives.
The Court emphasized that the woman was still legally married under the Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore, the claimed “live-in relationship” could not be accorded legal protection.
Court’s Key Observation: Freedom Cannot Override Legal Rights
Freedom vs. Statutory Rights
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that although an adult has autonomy over personal choices, including relationships, such autonomy is not absolute. The Court clarified that the right to personal liberty under the Constitution cannot be exercised to violate the statutory rights of another person.
Quote from the judgment:
“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.”
This means the legal husband’s right as a spouse under matrimonial law cannot be nullified by claiming police protection for a relationship outside marriage.
Illicit Relationships Cannot Claim Constitutional Protection
Marriage Under Hindu Marriage Act – Legal Implications
The Court stated unequivocally that a legally married person cannot seek police protection to continue an “illicit relationship.” As long as the marriage is valid and subsisting, the spouse’s statutory rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 remain intact.
The Court noted:
“No law-abiding citizen, who is already married under the Hindu Marriage Act, can seek protection for an illicit relationship not within the purview of the social fabric.”
Reason for Refusal of Relief
The State government opposed the petition, pointing out that the woman had not obtained divorce from her legally wedded husband. Accepting the couple’s plea for protection would indirectly amount to state endorsement of the relationship, which the Court refused to do.
The Court held that if the woman had any marital dispute, she must first seek separation or divorce through due legal process.
Further, the Court observed that issuing a writ of mandamus for such protection would defeat statutory provisions, including penal laws.
Legal Basis of the Judgment
1. Constitutional Provisions
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
The Court acknowledged that Article 21 protects the right to life, dignity, and liberty, including the choice of partner (as affirmed in several Supreme Court rulings).
However, this right is not absolute and must operate within the framework of existing laws.
Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus, but the Court reiterated that mandamus cannot be issued:
-
to violate statutory rights,
-
to endorse an illegal act,
-
or to defeat penal or matrimonial laws.
2. Statutory Provisions
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Relevant provisions:
-
Section 9 – Restitution of Conjugal Rights:
Provides a spouse the right to the company of their partner. -
Section 13 – Divorce:
Marriage remains legally valid until dissolved through a decree of divorce. -
Section 5 & 11 – Conditions for Valid Marriage & Void Marriages:
A subsisting marriage bars entry into another relationship resembling marriage.
The woman in this case was still legally married, so the claimed live-in arrangement had no legal recognition.
3. Judicial Precedents
A. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018, SC)
The Supreme Court held that adults have the right to live together even if they are not legally married.
However, this case involved two unmarried adults.
→ The Allahabad HC distinguished this precedent because the woman here was already married.
B. Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006, SC)
The Supreme Court protected inter-caste and inter-faith adult couples but again, this applied to unmarried consenting adults.
C. Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018, SC)
The Court reinforced the autonomy of adults but within legal confines.
D. Allahabad HC Precedents on Live-In Protection
The Allahabad HC has earlier granted protection to:
-
consenting adults in live-in relationships only when both were unmarried,
but has consistently denied protection where one partner was already in a subsisting marriage.
This judgment aligns with Smt. Aneeta v. State of UP (2021) where HC denied protection to a woman in a live-in relationship without divorce.
Mandamus and Illegality: Why the Court Declined the Writ
A writ of mandamus can be issued only when:
-
There exists a legally protected right, and
-
A corresponding legal duty on public authority.
The Court concluded:
-
The petitioners had no legally enforceable right to live together as a married woman cannot claim protection for a relationship outside marriage.
-
Granting protection would “indirectly give assent to illicit relations,” which the Court cannot do.
Thus, the petition was dismissed.
Conclusion: Legal Rights vs. Personal Liberty
This judgment reinforces a key principle of Indian law:
Personal liberty cannot be exercised in a manner that infringes the legal and statutory rights of another person.
The High Court balanced constitutional freedoms with matrimonial obligations under the Hindu Marriage Act. Until a marriage is legally dissolved, courts are unlikely to grant police protection for relationships that violate the spouse’s statutory rights.
The ruling is a reaffirmation that:
-
Live-in relationships are protected only when both individuals are unmarried adults,
-
And the writ jurisdiction of High Courts cannot be used to legitimize relationships that contradict existing marriage laws.

Comments
Post a Comment