The Allahabad High Court has observed that a married man being in a consensual live-in relationship with an adult woman does not constitute a criminal offence, while directing police to ensure protection to a couple facing threats from the woman’s family in Uttar Pradesh’s Shahjahanpur.
The court made the observation while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by the live-in couple seeking quashing of a police case and protection from alleged threats, including the scare of honour killing.
A Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena said, “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.”
The case stems from an FIR lodged by the woman’s mother at Jaitipur police station, alleging that the man, who is already married, abducted her 18-year-old daughter to compel her into marriage.
The petitioners, however, contended that they are both adults and are in a consensual live-in relationship.
The woman submitted that she is living with the man of her own free will and had earlier moved an application before the Superintendent of Police (SP), Shahjahanpur, stating that her family members were opposed to the relationship and had issued death threats.
Taking note of the submission, the court said, “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 a joint affidavit of both the petitioners.”
The Bench directed the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, to ensure the safety and security of the couple and held the officer personally responsible for their protection.
In its order dated March 25, the court also restrained the woman’s family members from causing harm to the couple and stated that they “shall not enter their matrimonial home or contact them directly or through any electronic means of communication or through… others”.
It further directed that “until further orders of this court, the petitioners… shall not be arrested in the case”.
Addressing the argument that the man’s marital status made the relationship unlawful, the court reiterated that no criminal offence is made out in a consensual relationship between adults. It underlined that its duty to protect fundamental rights cannot be dictated by social morality.
The case has been listed for further hearing on April 8, with the court granting time to the State and the woman’s family to file their counter affidavits.