A single choose of the Allahabad Excessive Courtroom on March 20 noticed that a person who’s already married and has a dwelling partner can’t legally be permitted to enter right into a live-in relationship with a 3rd individual with out in search of a divorce from the sooner partner.
A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh made this remark whereas dismissing a writ petition filed by a pair (each married to totally different companions) in search of mandamus directing the respondents to not intervene with their peaceable life and to supply safety.
It was the case of the petitioners that they had been dwelling collectively as husband and spouse and had a terror of a life menace from the respondents.
The State, nevertheless, opposed the plea, because it was argued that each petitioners had been already married and their act was unlawful as they’d not obtained a decree of divorce from a reliable courtroom.
Making an allowance for the information of the case, the Courtroom, on the outset, famous that in a wedding or live-in relationship, there have to be two consenting grownup human beings, and the ideas of gotra, caste, and faith are left behind. The Courtroom noticed that nobody, not even mother and father, has the precise to intervene within the private liberty of two adults.
Justice Singh, nevertheless, explicitly clarified that the Proper to Freedom or Proper to Private Liberty just isn’t an absolute or unfettered proper and that the liberty of 1 individual ceases the place one other individual’s statutory proper begins.
Importantly, the only choose harassed {that a} partner has a statutory proper to the corporate of their counterpart, and that proper can’t be disadvantaged for the sake of private liberty. The HC added that the liberty of 1 individual can’t encroach on or outweigh the authorized proper of one other individual.
“If the petitioners are already married and have their partner alive, he/she can’t be legally permitted to enter into live-in relationship with a 3rd individual with out in search of divorce from the sooner partner. He/she first has to acquire the decree of divorce from the courtroom of competent jurisdiction earlier than solemnizing marriage or coming into into dwelling in a relationship out of their authorized marriage,” the bench additional remarked.
On the query of aid to the petitioners, the bench noticed {that a} mandamus could be issued provided that the petitioner has a authorized proper to the efficiency of a authorized responsibility by the get together in opposition to whom the mandamus is sought, and such proper have to be subsisting on the date of the petition.
Nonetheless, the Courtroom opined that the petitioners don’t have any authorized proper to safety on the information of the current case inasmuch because the safety sought might quantity to safety in opposition to the fee of an offence below Part 494/495 IPC.
“It’s properly settled regulation that writ of mandamus cannot be issued opposite to regulation or to defeat a statutory provision together with penal provision. The petitioners shouldn’t have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting proper to ask for mandamus…this Courtroom just isn’t inclined to subject any writ, order or course within the nature of mandamus for defense to the petitioners who’re in a live-in relationship with out acquiring decree of divorce from competent courtroom as talked about above” the bench famous.
Thus, refusing to subject the writ, the Courtroom disposed of the petition with the remark that if the petitioners are subjected to violence, they could strategy the Superintendent of Police with an in depth software.
Considerably, a perusal of varied orders handed by Justice Singh reveals a constant strategy. Counting on this precise authorized reasoning, his bench has repeatedly denied police safety to live-in {couples} the place both one or each companions are already married to another person.
Apparently, in stark distinction to this Single Decide order, a Division Bench of the Excessive Courtroom, simply 5 days after passing of this specific order, noticed that there isn’t a offence if a married man lives with an grownup in a live-in relationship with the opposite individual’s consent.
Stressing that morality and regulation should stay separate, the Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena said that social opinions and ethical views is not going to dictate the Courtroom’s actions when defending residents’ rights.
This contrasting remark was made whereas the Division Bench was listening to a separate petition in search of safety for a live-in couple allegedly going through threats from the lady’s household.
Discovering {that a} prima facie case was made out, the Courtroom admitted the petition and issued notices to the respondents. It granted the state counsel two weeks’ time to file a counter-affidavit.
The bench additionally granted speedy aid to the couple (an 18-year-old lady and a married man) and directed that, till additional orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested within the legal case registered below Part 87 of the BNS at Police Station Jaitipur in Shahjahanpur district.
To make sure their absolute safety, the Division Bench restrained the informant and all members of the lady’s household from inflicting any hurt to the events in life or limb.
The bench additional directed that the relations shall not enter the events’ matrimonial house or contact them straight, by any digital technique of communication, or by the company of others.
The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, shall be personally chargeable for making certain the security and safety of the petitioners, the bench added.
Learn extra in regards to the division bench order right here : No Offence If Married Man Stays In Reside-In Relationship With Grownup Girl: Allahabad Excessive Courtroom
Case title – Anju And One other vs. State Of U.P. And three Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
Case quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
