Share This Article
If you are married and living with someone who is not your spouse — without a divorce — an Allahabad High Court ruling says you have no legal right to seek protection for that arrangement.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh of the Allahabad High Court, on March 20, disposed of a writ petition filed by a couple — both already married to different partners — who were seeking directions to prevent interference in their life together and to receive police protection. livelaw
The court was clear: your right to personal liberty ends where another person’s statutory rights begin.
What the court said
The bench noted that a spouse has a statutory right to the company of their partner, and that right cannot simply be set aside in the name of personal liberty. The freedom of one person, the court observed, cannot override the legal right of another. livelaw
The ruling was unambiguous about the sequence of events required. A person wishing to be in a live-in relationship must first obtain a decree of divorce from a competent court before moving in with a third person. No divorce, no legal protection.
When the couple asked for a writ of mandamus — a court direction ordering authorities not to interfere — the bench declined. It observed that a mandamus can only be issued where the petitioner holds a legal right, and on the facts of this case, the petitioners had no such right. Issuing the writ, the court noted, could amount to protecting the commission of an offence under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC. livelaw
The petitioners were told that if they faced physical violence, they could approach the Superintendent of Police with a written complaint.
A consistent pattern — and then a contradiction
A review of Justice Singh’s orders reveals that he has repeatedly denied police protection to live-in couples where either or both partners remain married to someone else, relying on the same legal reasoning each time. livelaw
What makes this ruling particularly interesting is what happened just five days after it was passed. A division bench of the same court — comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena — took the opposite view, observing that there is no offence if a married man lives in a relationship with another consenting adult. Stressing that morality and law must remain separate, the division bench said social opinions and moral views would not guide the court when citizens’ rights are at stake. livelaw
In that separate petition, the division bench granted interim protection to a couple — an 18-year-old woman and a married man — and restrained the woman’s family from causing them any harm. The Superintendent of Police of Shahjahanpur was made personally responsible for their safety. livelaw
What this means for you
Two benches of the same high court, within five days, arrived at opposite conclusions on the same question. One said no protection, the other said full protection. Until a larger bench or the Supreme Court resolves this directly, the outcome of any such petition may depend entirely on which judge it lands with.
If you are a tenant in a live-in relationship and facing harassment from a landlord, a housing society, or your partner’s family citing your relationship status, it is worth consulting a lawyer who can navigate the specific jurisdiction and bench that would hear your matter.
Case: Anju and Another vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others | 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 145
