Allahabad High Court Affirms Legality of Live-In Relationships, Mandates State Protection

In a landmark decision, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that live-in relationships are not illegal, emphasizing the state's responsibility to protect citizens from threats regardless of their marital status. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh highlighted that cohabitation without marriage does not constitute a crime and affirmed the constitutional rights of individuals in such relationships. The ruling came in response to petitions from women seeking police protection against threats. The court's decision underscores the importance of personal autonomy in choosing partners and living arrangements, while also addressing concerns raised about the social implications of live-in relationships. This ruling marks a significant step in recognizing the rights of individuals in non-traditional relationships.

By Narendra Chaudhary Dec 19, 2025, 20:14 IST

Court Ruling on Live-In Relationships

The Allahabad High Court delivered a significant ruling on Wednesday, declaring that live-in relationships are not illegal. The court emphasized that the state has a duty to safeguard all citizens from threats or interference, irrespective of their marital status.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh stated that cohabiting without marriage does not constitute a crime, and individuals in live-in arrangements are entitled to the constitutional protections of life and personal liberty.

The court remarked, “The mere fact that the petitioners have not formalized their marriage does not strip them of their fundamental rights as citizens of India.”

This decision was prompted by petitions from 12 women in live-in relationships who sought police protection, citing threats to their safety.

These women reported that their attempts to seek assistance from local law enforcement were met with indifference.

In its ruling, the court noted, “While the idea of a live-in relationship may not resonate with everyone, it cannot be deemed illegal, nor can cohabitation without marriage be classified as an offense.”

Justice Singh highlighted the importance of an adult's right to make personal choices regarding partners and living arrangements.

“Once an adult has chosen a partner, it is not for others, including family members, to interfere and disrupt their peaceful coexistence,” the court asserted, emphasizing that the right to life is paramount.

The court dismissed arguments from the state’s counsel, who claimed that live-in relationships threaten the social fabric of the country.

The counsel also argued that such relationships should not be legally recognized and likened them to contracts that could be easily dissolved, raising concerns about the legal status of children born from these unions.

However, Justice Singh found these points unpersuasive.

As part of its decision, the court instructed that the petitioners could approach the police commissioner or senior police officials with a certified copy of the ruling if they face any disturbances in their living situation.

Police are mandated to provide immediate protection upon verifying that the individuals are adults living together voluntarily, and they should refrain from taking any coercive actions against them.

In cases where individuals lack documentation to prove their age, particularly in rural or less educated backgrounds, the court allowed for ossification tests to ascertain their age.