In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has reinforced the constitutional protection afforded to adults in live-in relationships, asserting the state's duty to safeguard their life and liberty regardless of social norms. The judgment, delivered on December 29, 2025, came in response to petitions from live-in couples seeking protection from the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Court Draws Line Between Law and Morality
The bench provided relief to the petitioners by reiterating a well-established judicial principle: living in a non-marital relationship does not violate any law. This stance became crucial as the state counsel for UP opposed the writs, arguing that such relationships are contrary to the Indian social fabric and should not become a substitute for marriage. The court firmly distinguished legal obligations from moral policing, reminding the state authorities of their constitutional mandate.
This judgment gains added importance against the backdrop of recent legislative moves to regulate live-in arrangements. Notably, Uttarakhand's Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which came into force in January 2025, extended state surveillance over such relationships, potentially criminalizing them under the guise of protecting women and children. The UCC's provisions are currently challenged in the Uttarakhand High Court.
Unresolved Anxieties for Interfaith Couples
While the ruling is a welcome affirmation of personal liberty, it stops short of providing blanket protection for all couples. The court referenced the 2023 case of Kiran Rawat vs State of UP, where protection was denied to an inter-religious live-in couple. The Allahabad bench noted that the Rawat judgment was not in consonance with Supreme Court precedents but stated the facts of the present cases were "entirely different."
This distinction raises concerns, as the primary difference in the Rawat case was the interfaith nature of the relationship. Consequently, live-in relationships involving partners from different religions continue to face legal ambiguity and social anxiety, an issue the present judgment does not conclusively resolve.
A Shift in Judicial Discourse
The case is part of a rapid expansion in litigation concerning live-in relationships in India. A rise was particularly observed during the pandemic in states like Punjab and Haryana. Traditionally, courts have often examined these relationships through the lens of how they compare to marriage. However, the Allahabad HC judgment sidesteps that framework, focusing instead on the robust constitutional and judicial precedent supporting adults' autonomy in intimate partnerships.
Both the court and the state counsel expressed a view that live-in relations could be a means to evade social responsibility. Legal experts, like Professor Anuja Agrawal who commented on the case, argue this assumption is flawed. It overlooks other sources of social obligation and the fact that law alone cannot guarantee the fulfillment of marital duties. Resistance to legal obligations might drive a preference for live-in arrangements, but this should not be equated with an unwillingness to bear any responsibility.
Ultimately, while many questions persist—especially regarding interfaith couples and the tension with laws like the UCC—this judgment represents a pivotal moment. It underscores the judiciary's role in protecting individual freedoms against majoritarian social pressures and adds a crucial chapter to the evolving legal narrative on live-in relationships in India.
