Allahabad High Court Rules Right to Freedom Not Absolute for Married Live-In Couples
The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant judgment stating that the Right to Freedom is not an absolute right and cannot be used to shield a live-in couple if they are already married to other individuals, unless they have obtained a formal divorce decree from a court. This ruling came from a single-judge bench led by 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
In a decision dated March 20, the court addressed the petition where the couple had requested a writ of mandamus to direct authorities not to interfere in their life and to provide protection. The petitioners argued that they were living together as husband and wife and feared a threat to their lives. However, the state counsel countered that their act was illegal since they had not obtained a divorce from their respective 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 the freedom of one person ends where the statutory right of another begins, particularly highlighting a spouse's right to enjoy companionship.
Key Legal Points from the Judgment
- The court stated that protection cannot be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution for petitioners in a live-in relationship if they are already married without a divorce.
- It noted that a spouse has a statutory right to companionship, which cannot be deprived for the sake of another's personal liberty.
- The judgment clarified that if petitioners are married with a living spouse, they cannot legally enter a live-in relationship with a third person without seeking divorce.
- The court referenced settled law that a writ of mandamus requires a subsisting legal right to performance of a legal duty on the petition date.
Protection Against Violence and Future Steps
Despite denying the writ, the bench provided an alternative recourse. It stated that if the petitioners face any act of violence, they may approach the senior superintendent of police by submitting an application. The concerned authority will then verify the contents and take necessary action to ensure their safety.
This ruling underscores the delicate balance between individual freedoms and legal obligations in marital relationships, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
