No Offence Made Out If Married Man Stays With Adult Woman In Live-In Relationship: Allahabad HC
Introduction
It is entirely in order and so also it would be apposite to state that in the fitness of things, the Allahabad High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Anamika and another vs State of UP and others in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.-3799 0f 2026 that was pronounced just recently on March 25, 2026 has granted interim protection to a live-in couple and held in no uncertain terms that no offence would be made out if a married man stays with an adult in a live-in relationship with the consent of the woman.
Key Judicial Observation
- No offence is made out in consensual live-in relationships.
- Morality and law must be kept separate.
- Courts cannot act based on societal opinions.
It must be laid bare that the Allahabad High Court rendered such findings while taking serious note of the couple’s apprehension of honour killings. Most commendably, the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JJ Munir and Hon’ble Mr Justice Tarun Saxena of Allahabad High Court minced absolutely just no words to hold indubitably that:
“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.”
Factual Background
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| FIR Date | January 8 |
| Location | Jaitpur Police Station, Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh |
| Allegation | Abduction of 18-year-old woman |
| Man’s Status | Married with four children |
It would be instructive to note that the woman’s mother in an FIR that was lodged on January 8 at the Jaitpur police station which is situated in Shahjahanpur in Uttar Pradesh alleged that the 30-year-old man, who is already married, had abducted her 18-year-old daughter to lure her into marriage with him. The counsel for the family also had submitted that it was an offence for the married man to stay with another woman in a live-in relationship. But Allahabad High Court did not accept their contention. The man’s wife and four children are now with her parents. The only other member of his family is an 80-year-old father who stays with him.
Court Proceedings
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JJ Munir and Hon’ble Mr Justice Tarun Saxena of Allahabad High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in the opening para that:
Heard Mr. Shahenshah Akhtar Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ghan Shyam Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing on behalf of the State.
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then envisages in the next para of this progressive judgment that:
The first and the second petitioner, who are adults, are staying together in a live-in relationship. The first petitioner is admittedly a major, as the First Information Report lodged by the mother of the first petitioner says that she is 18 years of age. However, the informant says that the first petitioner was taken away by blandishment by the second petitioner.
As we see, the Division Bench then mentions in the next para of this recent judgment that:
It is pointed out by learned Counsel for the caveator, Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra that the second petitioner is a married man, and therefore, it is an offence for him to stay with another woman.
Legal Principle Established
Most significantly, most remarkably and so also most forthrightly, the Division Bench then encapsulates in the next para what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
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.
Reference To Supreme Court Judgment
It is worth noting that the Division Bench then notes in the next para of this courageous judgment while citing the relevant case law that:
- Application made to Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur
- Threat of honour killing reported
- Reliance placed on Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192
An application has been made by the first petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, saying that she is an adult and staying of her freewill with the second petitioner in a live-in relationship. It is reported that her parents and other family members are averse to the marriage and have threatened her with death, and both fear honour killing. Apparently, no action has been taken on this complaint by the Superintendent of Police. To protect two adults living together is the duty of the Police. Particular obligations in this regard are cast upon the Superintendent of Police, as held by the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others, (2018) 7 SCC 192. This petition is supported by joint affidavit of both the petitioners.
Interim Orders By Court
- Prima facie case established
- Notice issued to respondents
- Protection from arrest granted
- Police directed to ensure safety
Going ahead, the Division Bench then states in the next para of this rational judgment that:
A prima facie case is made out. Admit.
Be it noted, the Division Bench then notes in the next para of this creditworthy judgment that:
Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 is accepted by Mr. Ghan Shyam Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate-I, whereas that on behalf of respondent no. 4, by Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Both the learned Counsel are granted two weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit.
Further, the Bench then directs: Adjourned to 08.04.2026.
Do note, the Bench then notes: Issue notice.
Until further orders of this Court, the petitioners shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 4 of 2026, under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Jaitipur, District Shahjahanpur.
Protection Directions
- Family restrained from causing harm
- No contact permitted
- SP personally responsible for safety
The fourth respondent and all members of the first petitioner’s family stand restrained from causing harm to the parties in life or limb and shall not enter the parties’ matrimonial home or contact them directly or through any electronic means of communication or through the agency of others. The Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur shall be personally responsible to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners.
Final Direction
The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur and the Station House Officer, Police Station Jaitipur, District Shahjahanpur, both through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur within 24 hours next.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Allahabad High Court has made it indubitably clear in this exemplary judgment that no offence is made out if a married man stays in a live-in relationship with adult woman who is not his wife. We need to note that the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice JJ Munir and Hon’ble Mr Justice Tarun Saxena of Allahabad High Court explicitly held so while hearing a live-in couple’s writ petition seeking protection and ordered the Superintendent of Police concerned to ensure their security. There can be just no gainsaying that this laudable judgment is definitely worth emulating in similar such cases!
