In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court declined to grant protection to a couple claiming to be in a live-in relationship, observing that such protection cannot be extended when one or both partners are already legally married and have not obtained a divorce.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, identified as Anju and another, approached the court seeking a writ directing authorities not to interfere in their peaceful life. They also requested police protection, citing an apprehension of threat from a private respondent.
Their counsel argued that the couple was living together as husband and wife and feared harm to their life and liberty.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Orders 10-Year Jail in Rape Facilitation Case, Rejects Plea for Leniency
However, the State opposed the plea, contending that both individuals were already married to other persons and had not obtained a valid divorce. Therefore, their relationship could not be legally recognized.
Hearing the matter, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh acknowledged that personal liberty allows consenting adults to choose their partners. However, the court clarified that this freedom is not absolute.
“The right to personal liberty cannot override the statutory rights of a legally wedded spouse,” the bench observed.
The court emphasized that a person cannot enter into a live-in relationship resembling marriage without first dissolving their existing marriage through a valid decree of divorce.
It further noted that:
- A subsisting marriage continues until legally dissolved.
- Entering into another relationship during this period may attract offences like bigamy under law.
- Such relationships do not qualify as “relationships in the nature of marriage.”
The bench also pointed out the absence of any material evidence to establish that the petitioners were living as spouses such as joint financial arrangements or shared responsibilities.
The court reiterated that a writ of mandamus (a court order directing authorities to act) can only be issued when the petitioner has a legally enforceable right.
Read also:- POCSO Bail Row Reaches Supreme Court: Plea Challenges Relief Granted to Religious Figure
In this case, the bench found that granting protection could effectively shield conduct that may violate penal provisions, including those related to bigamy.
“It is well settled that mandamus cannot be issued to defeat statutory provisions,” the court stated.
Refusing to grant protection, the High Court held that the petitioners did not have a legally enforceable right to seek such relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, the court clarified that if the petitioners face any real threat or violence, they are free to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police. Authorities, in such cases, are expected to act in accordance with law to ensure their safety.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Anju and Another vs State of U.P. and Others
Case Number: Writ-C No. 10593 of 2026
Judge: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
Decision Date: March 20, 2026
