Powerful Ruling: Allahabad High Court Says Married Man’s Live-In Relationship Not a Crime
The Allahabad High Court has held that a married man engaging in a consensual live-in relationship with an adult woman does not constitute a criminal offence. The Court emphasized that morality and law must remain separate while adjudicating rights.
The judgment came in Anamika and another v State of UP and Others, where a Division Bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena was hearing a petition seeking protection for a live-in couple facing threats from the woman’s family.
Table of Contents
Court Draws Clear Line Between Law and Morality
During the proceedings, counsel for the woman’s family argued that since the man was already married, his relationship with another woman should be treated as an offence. Rejecting this contention, the Bench made a crucial observation:
“There 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. If there is no offence under the law made out, social opinions and morality will not guide the action of the Court for protecting the rights of citizens,”
This observation reiterates the judiciary’s consistent stance that consensual relationships between adults fall within the ambit of personal liberty under constitutional protections.
Threat Perception and Police Inaction
The Court noted that the woman had already approached the Superintendent of Police (SP), Shahjahanpur, stating that she is an adult living voluntarily with her partner. She further alleged that her family members were strongly opposed to the relationship and had issued threats, raising fears of honour killing.
Highlighting police inaction, the Bench observed:
“Apparently, no action has been taken on this complaint by the Superintendent of Police. To protect two adults living together is the duty of the Police. Particular obligations in this regard are cast upon the Superintendent of Police, as held by the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others, (2018) 7 SCC 192. This petition is supported by joint affidavit of both the petitioners,”
The Court relied on the precedent set in Shakti Vahini v Union of India, which mandates protection for couples facing threats due to societal opposition.
Interim Protection Granted
Recognizing a prima facie case, the High Court issued notice to the State and listed the matter for further hearing on April 8, 2026. Importantly, the Bench granted interim protection to the couple in connection with a criminal case lodged by the woman’s family.
“Until further orders of this Court, the petitioners, to wit, Anamika and Netrapal shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 4 of 2026, under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Jaitipur, District Shahjahanpur,”
The case involves allegations under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Directions to Ensure Safety
Further strengthening protection measures, the Court restrained the woman’s family from interfering with the couple’s life. They were explicitly prohibited from contacting or approaching the couple or entering their residence.
Additionally, the Court imposed personal responsibility on the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, to ensure the safety and security of the couple.
Representation
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Shahenshah Akhtar Khan, while Additional Government Advocate Ghan Shyam Kumar appeared for the State. Advocate Ajay Kumar Mishra represented a private respondent.
READ JUDGEMENT
RECENT POSTS
- Institutions Like ECI Must Function Independently: Justice BV Nagarathna Warns Against Constitutional Breakdown
- Rajasthan High Court Deletes Remarks Critical of Transgender Amendment Law, Says Epilogue Was “Added by Mistake”
- Delhi Court Grants Bail in AI Image Case Involving Narendra Modi and Shah Rukh Khan
- Supreme Court Slams West Bengal Over Attack on Judges During SIR Election Duties, Orders Central Probe
- Supreme Court Imposes ₹25,000 Costs on Centre for Unnecessary Litigation in CISF Constable Election
- Calcutta High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging ECI Transfers Ahead of West Bengal Elections
