Allahabad HC’s U-Turn On Live-In Row: Married Man’s Relationship ‘Not A Criminal Offence If...’

The Allahabad High Court has triggered a fresh legal debate after appearing to change its stand on live-in relationships involving married individuals. In a recent observation, the court said that a married man living in a consensual live-in relationship with an adult woman is not committing a criminal offence.

What makes this development significant is that it comes just days after the court had expressed a completely different view, leading many to describe the shift as a "U-turn".

Latest Observation: No Criminal Offence

On March 25, a Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena was hearing a plea filed by a live-in couple seeking protection. The couple told the court that they were facing threats from the woman's family.

While hearing the case, the court made it clear that when two adults are living together with mutual consent, their relationship does not amount to a criminal offence under the law. The judges stressed that courts cannot refuse protection based on social disapproval.

The bench observed that the role of the judiciary is to protect citizens' rights and ensure their safety. It also underlined that law and morality are separate, and moral opinions cannot decide whether protection should be granted when no offence is made out.

The U-Turn: What the Court Said Earlier

The recent observation stands in sharp contrast to what the court had said just a few days earlier, on March 20. At that time, while hearing another case, a single-judge bench had taken a stricter position and refused to grant protection to a live-in couple.

In that order, the court had clearly stated that a married person cannot be allowed to enter into a live-in relationship with someone else without first obtaining a divorce from their spouse. It emphasised that marriage creates legal rights, and those rights cannot be ignored.

The court had also pointed out that personal liberty is not unlimited. It said that allowing such relationships without divorce could infringe upon the legal rights of the existing spouse, who has a recognised right to companionship.

Similar View Taken in Earlier Cases

This stricter approach was not new. In a similar case in December last year, the court had refused to grant protection to a couple in a live-in relationship where one partner was already married.

In that instance as well, the court had said that a person must first legally end their marriage before entering into another relationship of this nature. The judgment highlighted that the legal rights of a spouse cannot be overlooked in the name of individual freedom.

Law vs Personal Liberty: The Core Issue

The contrasting observations highlight an ongoing tension in such cases. On one side is the principle of personal liberty, which allows adults to make their own choices about relationships. On the other side are the legal rights that arise from marriage, which are protected under law.

The latest ruling leans more towards protecting individual freedom and ensuring safety when no criminal offence is involved. The earlier stance, however, focused more on protecting the institution of marriage and the rights of the existing spouse.

This apparent U-turn is important because it raises questions about consistency in judicial decisions. For people involved in similar situations, differing observations can create confusion about what the law actually permits.

It also shows how courts are still trying to balance changing social realities with established legal principles. Live-in relationships are increasingly recognised, but cases involving married