Allahabad High Court Rules on Live-In Relationships and Divorce
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has stated that the right to freedom is not absolute and cannot shield a live-in couple if they are already married, unless they obtain a divorce decree from a court. The decision, dated March 20, was delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, who disposed of a petition filed by a live-in couple seeking protection from interference in their life.
Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning
The petitioners had requested a writ of mandamus to direct authorities not to interfere and to provide protection, arguing they were living together as husband and wife and feared a threat to life. However, the state counsel countered that their act was illegal since they had not obtained a divorce from their spouses.
The court observed, "No one has the right to interfere in the personal liberty of the two adults, not even the parents. However, the right to freedom or right to personal liberty is not an absolute or unfettered right. It is qualified by some restrictions also." The bench emphasized that statutory rights of spouses take precedence, stating, "The freedom of one person extincts where the statutory right of another person starts. A spouse has 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."
Justice Singh ruled that protection cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution in such cases, noting, "If the petitioners are already married and have their spouse alive, they cannot be legally permitted to enter into live-in relationship with a third person without seeking divorce." The court clarified that a writ of mandamus requires a subsisting legal right, which was absent here.
Contrast with Division Bench Ruling
Interestingly, just five days after this order, a division bench of the same high court took a different stance. In a March 25 order, Justices JJ Munir and Tarun Saxena granted protection to a live-in couple, stating that morality and law must be kept separate. They ruled that there is no offence if a married man stays with an adult in a live-in relationship with consent, emphasizing that social opinions will not dictate court actions when protecting citizens' rights.
Practical Implications and Safety Measures
Despite denying protection under writ jurisdiction, the single-judge bench provided a safety net: if the petitioners face violence, they can approach the senior superintendent of police with an application. The concerned authority will then verify the contents and take necessary action. This highlights the court's balance between upholding legal statutes and ensuring individual safety.
The ruling underscores the complex interplay between personal freedom and marital rights in Indian law, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
