In a significant legal victory for personal autonomy and civil liberties, the Allahabad High Court on December 17, 2025, issued a landmark ruling providing a protective “shield” to 12 women involved in live-in relationships who were facing threats from their families and society.
Presided over by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, the court clubbed together 12 separate petitions from women across Uttar Pradesh who alleged that their choice of partner had put their lives in imminent danger and that local police had failed to provide adequate security.
In a robust defense of constitutional freedoms, the court explicitly stated that live-in relationships are not illegal, nor does cohabitation without the sanctity of marriage constitute a criminal offense.
This judgment marks a pivotal shift in the judicial discourse in Uttar Pradesh, as it directly prioritized the Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution over traditional societal norms and moral disapproval.
The Constitutional “Pedestal” of Choice
The court’s observations were rooted in the principle that once an individual attains the age of majority, they possess the absolute right to decide where and with whom they live.
Justice Singh remarked that the right to human life must be treated on a “much higher pedestal,” regardless of whether a citizen is married or unmarried.
The ruling noted that while the concept of a live-in relationship may still face significant social stigma and moral debate—viewed by some as a “social problem” and by others as a valid choice—the court’s role is not to act as a moral arbiter.
The court further emphasized the State’s “bounden duty” to protect every citizen. It rejected the argument presented by the government counsel, who suggested that such relationships erode the “social fabric” and that police should not be compelled to act as personal security for non-marital arrangements.
Instead, the High Court reaffirmed that a couple’s unmarried status does not strip them of their fundamental rights, and the State cannot remain a “silent spectator” when its citizens’ lives are at risk due to their personal choices.
Directives for Police Protection
To ensure the safety of the 12 petitioners, the High Court issued specific, actionable directives to the Uttar Pradesh police. The court ordered that:
Immediate Access: The petitioners may approach the Commissioner of Police, SSP, or SP of their respective districts with a certified copy of the court order.
Verification Protocols: Police officers must provide immediate protection after verifying that the individuals are majors and are living together voluntarily.
Age Verification: In cases where documentary proof of age is unavailable—particularly for those from rural or illiterate backgrounds—the court authorized the police to conduct ossification tests or use other lawful methods to verify adulthood.
No Coercive Action: The ruling strictly prohibited any coercive action against the couples by the police unless they are found to be involved in an actual criminal offense.
Legal Precedents and Social Context
The judgment drew strength from Supreme Court precedents such as Lata Singh and S. Khushboo, which have long held that live-in relationships are protected under the umbrella of personal liberty.
Interestingly, the court also pointed toward the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, noting that the law itself recognizes “domestic relationships” and provides protection and maintenance to women in such setups without mandating the status of a “legal wife.”
This ruling is particularly noteworthy as it moves away from a more conservative 2023 Division Bench order (Kiran Rawat vs. State of U.P.) that had characterized live-in ties as a social burden.
By focusing on the individual over the institution, the Allahabad High Court has sent a clear message that in a modern democracy, the constitutional right to choose one’s partner is sacrosanct and must be defended by the state machinery at all costs.
About the Author
