The Allahabad High Court has recently drawn attention for differing observations on whether a married person can legally be in a live-in relationship with another adult. A Division Bench on March 25 said such a relationship, if consensual, does not amount to an offence under the law, even if one partner is already married.
Court separates law from social morality
The Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena was hearing a plea from a couple seeking protection from alleged threats by the woman’s family. According to Bar and Bench, the court observed that there is no specific legal provision that criminalises a married man living with another adult in a consensual arrangement.
“There is no offence of the kind where a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, by consent of the other person, can be prosecuted for any offence, whatsoever. Morality and law have to be kept apart. If there is no offence under the law made out, social opinions and morality will not guide the action of the Court for protecting the rights of citizens”, it stated.
Also Read | Married man in live-in relationship with consenting adult woman not an offence: Allahabad High Court
Earlier rulings took a stricter view
The March 25 observation appears to contrast with remarks made by a single-judge bench of the same court on March 20. In that instance, protection was denied to a live-in couple because a married individual cannot enter such a relationship without first obtaining a divorce from their spouse.
“In that case, the court had said, “If the petitioners are already married and have their spouse alive, he/she cannot be legally permitted to enter into live-in relationship with a third person without seeking divorce from the earlier spouse. He/she first has to obtain the decree of divorce from the court of competent jurisdiction before solemnising marriage or entering into living in a relationship out of their legal marriage”, it said.
Also Read | ‘Height of insensitivity’: Supreme Court slams Haryana Police, orders SIT in child abuse case
The court had also underlined that personal liberty is not absolute. It observed, “A spouse has the statutory right to enjoy the company of his or her counterpart and he/she cannot be deprived of that right for the sake of personal liberty and no such protection can be granted to infringe the statutory right of the other spouse.”
Consistency questioned after prior observations
A similar stance had also been taken in December last year, when the court ruled that a married person must secure a divorce before entering into a live-in relationship with a third party. In that case, a petition seeking protection was dismissed.
These contrasting observations have raised questions about consistency in judicial interpretation within the same High Court, particularly in matters involving personal liberty and marital rights.
