Abstract
This article examines the evolving legal recognition of live-in relationships in India through the lens of a recent Allahabad High Court judgment in Amit Kumar & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2024). Reaffirming that consensual cohabitation between adults is neither illegal nor immoral, the Court held that such relationships are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution as an integral aspect of personal liberty and dignity.
The article analyses the factual background, judicial reasoning, and directions issued by the High Court, particularly its emphasis on constitutional morality over social disapproval. It further situates the ruling within the broader framework of Supreme Court jurisprudence, drawing comparative insights from landmark decisions that have consistently upheld individual autonomy in matters of personal relationships. By tracing this judicial continuity, the article highlights the growing alignment of Indian family law with constitutional values, underscoring the judiciary’s role in safeguarding personal choice against moral policing and societal resistance.
Case Name
Amit Kumar & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Court
Allahabad High Court
Citation
2024 (Allahabad High Court)
(Neutral citation not yet officially reported)
Introduction
In a significant reaffirmation of personal liberty and constitutional morality, the Allahabad High Court has once again clarified that live-in relationships between consenting adults are not illegal in India. The Court held that such relationships fall within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The ruling is important not only for couples choosing to live together outside marriage but also for law-enforcement authorities, who are often confronted with complaints rooted in social disapproval rather than legal wrongdoing.
Facts of the Case
The petition was filed by two adults who were living together in a live-in relationship by mutual consent. They approached the High Court seeking police protection, alleging harassment, threats, and interference from family members and others who opposed their relationship.
Despite both individuals being majors and acting voluntarily, their cohabitation was being treated as socially unacceptable, leading to repeated disturbances and fear for their safety.
Issues Before the Court
The High Court was primarily called upon to consider:
- Whether a live-in relationship between two consenting adults is illegal under Indian law
- Whether such couples are entitled to protection of life and liberty
- Whether social or moral objections can override constitutional rights
Observations of the Court
The Allahabad High Court made several important observations:
- Live-in relationships are not prohibited by law
The Court categorically stated that Indian law does not criminalise live-in relationships between consenting adults. - Right to Choose One’s Partner Is a Fundamental Right
Choosing how and with whom to live is an intrinsic part of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. - Social Morality Cannot Trump Constitutional Morality
The Court reiterated that societal discomfort or family disapproval cannot be a valid ground to interfere with an adult’s personal choices. - Police Have a Duty to Protect, Not Judge
Law-enforcement authorities were reminded that their role is to ensure safety and uphold constitutional rights, not to enforce social norms.
Final Ruling
The Allahabad High Court held that:
- A live-in relationship between two consenting adults is neither illegal nor immoral in the eyes of law
- Such couples are entitled to protection of life and liberty
- Authorities must ensure that no harassment or coercion is caused to them merely because their relationship does not conform to traditional expectations
Accordingly, directions were issued to the police authorities to ensure protection if any threat to the couple’s safety arises.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This judgment strengthens a consistent judicial trend in India that places individual autonomy above societal pressure. While marriage remains a socially recognised institution, the Court made it clear that law does not compel adults to marry in order to live together.
The ruling also aligns with earlier Supreme Court decisions which have recognised:
- Live-in relationships as part of the right to life
- The applicability of domestic violence protections in certain live-in arrangements
- The evolving nature of family law in a constitutional democracy
Impact on Family Law and Society
- Reinforces constitutional protection for unconventional relationships
- Acts as a safeguard against misuse of police machinery for moral policing
- Encourages a rights-based approach rather than a value-judgment approach
- Reflects the judiciary’s role in balancing tradition with evolving social realities
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Amit Kumar & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a clear reminder that personal liberty cannot be curtailed by social disapproval. In a democratic and constitutional society, adults have the freedom to define their relationships without fear, as long as their choices are consensual and lawful.
This judgment continues to shape modern Indian family law by recognising that dignity, autonomy, and freedom of choice lie at the heart of the Constitution.
How the Allahabad High Court Judgment Fits into This Jurisprudence
The decision in Amit Kumar & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Allahabad High Court, 2024) is not an isolated ruling. Rather, it is a logical continuation of settled Supreme Court jurisprudence which consistently holds that:
- Consensual relationships between adults are constitutionally protected
- Live-in relationships are not illegal, even if socially disapproved
- State authorities must protect liberty, not enforce morality
By relying on Article 21 and refusing to bow to social pressure, the High Court has aligned itself with the Supreme Court’s repeated emphasis on individual autonomy, dignity, and constitutional morality.
Comparative Case-Law Table: Supreme Court on Live-In Relationships
| Case Name | Citation | Key Issue | Principle Laid Down | Relevance to Present HC Judgment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation | (1978) 3 SCC 527 | Long-term cohabitation | A prolonged live-in relationship raises a presumption of marriage in law | Forms the earliest recognition that cohabitation cannot be treated as illegal |
| S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal | (2010) 5 SCC 600 | Criminal complaints against live-in relationships | Living together without marriage is not an offence and falls under Article 21 | Directly supports the HC’s view that live-in relationships are not illegal |
| D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal | (2010) 10 SCC 469 | Maintenance rights in live-in relationships | Defined conditions under which a live-in relationship may be treated as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” | Clarifies that legality exists even if full marital rights do not automatically follow |
| Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma | (2013) 15 SCC 755 | Protection under Domestic Violence Act | Recognised live-in relationships as social reality deserving legal protection | Reinforces the need for legal safeguards beyond social morality |
| Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Hadiya Case) | (2018) 16 SCC 368 | Choice of partner | Right to choose a partner is part of individual liberty under Article 21 | Supports the HC’s emphasis on personal autonomy and freedom of choice |
| Nandakumar v. State of Kerala | (2018) 16 SCC 602 | Adult cohabitation | Even unmarried adults have the right to live together | Strong precedent for granting protection to live-in couples |
| Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India | (2018) 10 SCC 1 | Constitutional morality | Constitutional morality prevails over social morality | Forms the philosophical backbone of the HC’s reasoning |
| Lata Singh v. State of U.P. | (2006) 5 SCC 475 | Protection of adult couples | Adults have the right to live together without interference | Frequently relied upon by High Courts in protection petitions |
How the Allahabad High Court Judgment Fits Into This Jurisprudence
The decision in Amit Kumar & Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Allahabad High Court, 2024) is not an isolated ruling. Rather, it is a logical continuation of settled Supreme Court jurisprudence which consistently holds that:
- Consensual relationships between adults are constitutionally protected
- Live-in relationships are not illegal, even if socially disapproved
- State authorities must protect liberty, not enforce morality
By relying on Article 21 and refusing to bow to social pressure, the High Court has aligned itself with the Supreme Court’s repeated emphasis on individual autonomy, dignity, and constitutional morality.
Takeaway
Together, these judgments establish a clear legal position:
- In India, law protects personal choice in relationships. Social acceptance is optional; constitutional protection is not.
