Rajasthan HC Orders Police Protection for Live-In Couple

The Rajasthan High Court has instructed the local police to consider providing necessary protection to a man and woman living in a live-in relationship outside of their respective marriages.

Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed by a mother of four and a father of one, who have been living together for the past few days without obtaining divorces from their respective spouses. The couple feared for their lives due to potential threats from their relatives.

The bench referred to the case of Kanti and another vs. State of Haryana & Ors (2023), where Justice Monga, while serving as a puisne judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, ruled that the primary issue was not the legality of the petitioners’ relationship but rather whether they were entitled to protection under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was determined that although the couple’s relationship was prima facie adulterous, in a nation governed by the rule of law, the fundamental right under Article 21 stands on a higher pedestal and must be protected, irrespective of the legitimacy of the relationship between the parties.

Notably, the Kanti judgment contrasts with another ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the same year—Binder Kaur and another v. State of Punjab & Ors (2023)—which dismissed a similar petition filed by a couple living together outside of their respective marriages. The court termed it a “classic case of illicit relationship,” labeled the petition an “abuse of process of law,” and imposed a fine on the couple. The court held that married individuals cannot enter into live-in relationships with others while their marriages are still subsisting, as it would amount to a transgression of the valid legal framework.

Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Devi Bulli Venkanna v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2023), rejected a habeas corpus petition filed by a married man for the production of a woman with whom he was living, who had been taken away by her father. The court dismissed the petition, considering it a scheme to legitimize illegal actions by seeking the court’s approval. It was held that while a couple’s choice to live together without the solemnization of marriage is recognized, married individuals are not entitled to live with others during the subsistence of their marriage.