Big Ruling: Married Person Cannot Enter Live-In Relationship Without Divorce, Allahabad High Court
Big Ruling: Married Person Cannot Enter Live-In Relationship Without Divorce, Allahabad High Court
Court says personal liberty is not absolute and cannot override the statutory rights of a legal spouse.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a married individual cannot legally enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without first obtaining a decree of divorce from a competent court. With this observation, the court dismissed a writ petition filed by a couple seeking protection while living together in a live-in arrangement.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, who emphasised that while adults have the right to personal liberty, that right is not absolute or unfettered. It cannot be exercised in a manner that infringes upon the statutory rights of an existing spouse.
The petitioners had approached the court claiming that both were adults living together as husband and wife and feared a threat to their lives from family members. The state, however, opposed the plea, pointing out that one of the petitioners was already married and had not obtained a divorce from her legal spouse.
In its judgment, the court observed that no one — including parents — has the right to interfere in the personal liberty of two consenting adults. However, it clarified that the right to freedom ends where the legal rights of another begin. A legally wedded spouse, the court noted, has a statutory right to the “company” of their partner, and this right cannot be taken away under the guise of personal liberty.
“A spouse has the statutory right to enjoy the company of his or her counterpart and he or she cannot be deprived of that right for the sake of personal liberty,” the court said, adding that protection cannot be granted if it results in infringing upon the lawful rights of the other spouse.
The court further held that if an individual is already married and their spouse is alive, they cannot be legally permitted to enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without first dissolving the earlier marriage through due legal process.
Refusing to grant protection, the court said it was not inclined to issue any writ, order, or direction in favour of petitioners who were in a live-in relationship without obtaining a divorce decree.
The judgment also took note of the growing number of similar petitions, observing that many couples seek court intervention after district police fail to act on their complaints. The court clarified that the issue before it was not social approval or moral judgment of live-in relationships, but the balance between constitutional freedoms and statutory legal rights.
While reaffirming that adults have the autonomy to decide where they live and whom they associate with after attaining majority, the court stressed that such autonomy cannot override established legal obligations arising from marriage.
