Introduction:

The present case came before the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition filed by two individuals seeking protection from threats allegedly posed by the woman’s family due to their live in relationship. The petitioners included an adult woman aged 18 years and a man who was already married. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena. The core issue before the Court was whether a live in relationship between a married man and an adult woman could attract criminal liability merely on the ground of perceived immorality and whether the State was obligated to provide protection to such a couple facing threats from family members. The factual background revealed that the woman’s family had lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the man had enticed or lured her away and further contended that since he was already married his cohabitation with another woman amounted to a punishable offence. On the other hand the petitioners asserted that the relationship was consensual and that the woman had voluntarily chosen to reside with the man without any coercion or inducement. They further alleged that the woman’s family members had issued threats to their lives raising apprehensions of honour based violence. The Court was therefore required to examine the interplay between personal liberty societal morality and criminal law while determining whether any offence was made out and whether the petitioners were entitled to protection under constitutional principles.

Arguments:

On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that both individuals were consenting adults and had chosen to live together out of their own free will without any unlawful compulsion. Learned counsel argued that the woman had clearly expressed her intention to stay with the man through an application submitted to the Superintendent of Police Shahjahanpur affirming that she was acting voluntarily and without any pressure. It was further submitted that the allegations made by her family members in the FIR were baseless and motivated by social disapproval rather than any genuine criminal wrongdoing. The petitioners emphasised that the mere fact that the man was married did not render the relationship criminal in nature as there exists no provision in criminal law which penalises a consensual live in relationship between adults. It was also argued that the continued threats from the woman’s family posed a serious risk to their lives and liberty particularly in the context of honour based violence which has been repeatedly condemned by courts. The petitioners contended that the failure of the local police authorities to take action on their complaint amounted to dereliction of duty and necessitated intervention by the High Court. They sought protection from arrest in the criminal case registered under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and also prayed for directions to ensure their safety and security. On the other hand the State and the informant’s side sought to justify the registration of the FIR and opposed the relief sought by the petitioners. It was argued that the man being already married had no legal right to enter into a relationship with another woman and that such conduct was against societal norms and moral values. The informant’s side further alleged that the woman had been lured away through inducement and that her consent was not genuine. It was contended that the family was acting in her best interests and that the relationship was detrimental to her welfare. The State also submitted that the matter required proper investigation and that the petitioners should not be granted blanket protection from arrest at this stage. However the respondents were unable to point out any specific provision of law which criminalised the act of a married man living in a consensual live in relationship with an adult woman.

Judgment:

The Allahabad High Court after considering the submissions and examining the material on record delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the distinction between law and morality. The Division Bench categorically held that there is no offence under the law if a married man lives in a consensual live in relationship with an adult woman. The Court emphasised that criminal law cannot be invoked merely on the basis of moral disapproval or societal perceptions. In a clear and authoritative observation the Bench stated that morality and law must be kept separate and that courts are bound to protect the rights of citizens in accordance with legal principles rather than social opinions. The Court found that the woman in the present case was an adult who had voluntarily chosen to reside with the petitioner and had even communicated her decision to the police authorities. There was no material on record to suggest that she had been coerced or unlawfully induced into the relationship. The Court therefore rejected the contention that the relationship constituted any criminal offence. The Bench further observed that the allegations made by the woman’s family were rooted in disapproval of the relationship rather than any legally sustainable ground. The Court took serious note of the threats allegedly extended by the family members and the inaction of the police authorities in addressing the same. It reiterated that it is the fundamental duty of the State to protect the life and liberty of individuals particularly when they are exercising their personal choices within the framework of law. The Court held that two consenting adults have the right to live together without interference and that any threat to their safety must be dealt with firmly by the authorities. In view of the prima facie case made out by the petitioners the Court admitted the petition and issued notices to the respondents directing them to file their response. Pending further consideration the Court granted interim protection to the petitioners by directing that they shall not be arrested in connection with the FIR registered under Section 87 BNS. The Court also passed stringent directions restraining the informant and all family members from causing any harm to the petitioners or contacting them directly or indirectly through any means. Recognising the gravity of the situation the Court made the Superintendent of Police Shahjahanpur personally responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the petitioners. The judgment thus reaffirms the constitutional commitment to individual autonomy and underscores that personal relationships between consenting adults cannot be subjected to criminal sanction merely because they deviate from conventional moral standards.