{"id":3570,"date":"2026-01-20T19:19:37","date_gmt":"2026-01-20T13:49:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=3570"},"modified":"2026-01-20T19:19:37","modified_gmt":"2026-01-20T13:49:37","slug":"protection-of-life-and-liberty-of-live-in-couples-under-article-21","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/protection-of-life-and-liberty-of-live-in-couples-under-article-21\/","title":{"rendered":"Protection of Life and Liberty of Live-in Couples under Article 21"},"content":{"rendered":"

Akanksha & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors<\/strong><\/h1>\n

WRIT-C No. 35171 of 2025<\/h1>\n

Vivek Kumar Singh,J<\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Allahabad High Court gave a joint decision in a set of writ petitions filed by eligible couples in live-in relations for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution on 17 December 2025. The petitioners feared danger from relatives and private respondents due to opposition to their relations from society at large. The question before the Court was whether live-in partners are entitled to police protection if they are not married as a result of their consensual union.<\/p>\n

Facts of the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

There were several writ petitions filed by couples in “live-in” relationships due to their choice of living together. The petitioners held that they belonged to the major and consenting age group, facing threats, harassment, and possible violence at the hands of family members and\/or relatives. However, despite their efforts at seeking protection from local police authorities, no efficacious protection was provided, thereby forcing them to seek relief under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Article 226.<\/p>\n

In view of the repetitive nature of such petitions as well as the various constitutional issues at stake, the Court designated a Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae. The State was opposing the petitions, as live-in relationships are said to affect the social fabric in general; they are viewed as having no sanctity within the legal framework, until they are implicitly threatened by some life-threatening danger in terms of police security.<\/p>\n

Legal Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  • Whether a live-in relationship between consenting adults is illegal or unlawful under Indian law.<\/li>\n
  • Whether the individuals involved in the relationship have a right to protection of their life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21.<\/li>\n
  • Whether the State can withhold police services simply because the couple is not legally married.<\/li>\n
  • Whether morality and social disapproval can trump the constitutional guarantee of autonomy and freedom of choice.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    Decision and Reasoning<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The court held that \u201clive-in relationships between consenting adults do not amount to an offense if they violate societal morals.\u201d Evidently, the court used precedence from constitutional cases like Lata Singh, S. Khushboo, Indra Sarma, Nandakumar, and Shafin Jahan and confirmed that \u201cthe selection of one\u2019s life companion and residing together is an emanation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n

    The Court emphatically rejected the State\u2019s contention that the scope of protection may be limited to those who are married. It held that fundamental rights cannot be abrogated on the basis of marriage and morality. The Court also noted that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 itself recognizes the relationship \u201cin the nature of marriage,\u201d which further establishes the State\u2019s acceptance of the concept of live-in relationships.<\/p>\n

    It was held that once the petitioners are established to be major and voluntarily cohabiting together, there arises a constitutional obligation on the part of the State to safeguard their life and liberty. Failure to do so shall constitute denial of such safeguarding.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Akanksha & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors WRIT-C No. 35171 of 2025 Vivek Kumar Singh,J   Overview The Allahabad High Court gave a joint decision in a set of writ petitions filed by eligible couples in live-in relations for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution on 17 December 2025. The petitioners feared […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3572,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3570"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3574,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3570\/revisions\/3574"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3572"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}