Delhi High Court.
Can married people seek security from court as live-in couple?: New Delhi — In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional protections, the Delhi High Court has held that the marital status of consenting adults in a live-in relationship is irrelevant when courts are called upon to protect their fundamental rights to life and personal liberty.
Delivering the ruling on April 10, 2026, Justice Saurabh Banerjee emphasized that constitutional safeguards under Articles 19 and 21 apply uniformly to all citizens, regardless of whether they are married, unmarried, or in relationships outside wedlock.
“For this, the status of the citizens, whether they are (un)married or are in a live-in relationship, is not a germane factor,” the Court observed.
Case Background: Couple Seeks Protection Amid Threats
The case involved two individuals who, despite being married to different partners and having children from their respective marriages, entered into a live-in relationship. The woman alleged harassment and intimidation by her husband, prompting the couple to leave Hyderabad and relocate to Delhi.
Even after relocating, they claimed to face persistent threats from the woman’s family and local authorities. When their representations to the police failed to yield any response, they approached the High Court seeking protection.
Core Legal Question
The key issue before the high court was whether consenting adults—already married to other individuals—could be denied police protection solely due to the nature of their relationship.
The court unequivocally answered in the negative, holding that societal perceptions or moral considerations cannot override fundamental rights when personal safety is at stake.
Constitutional Rights Take Precedence
The bench reiterated that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, along with freedoms guaranteed under Article 19, extend to all citizens without discrimination.
Justice Banerjee stressed that the role of a constitutional court is not to evaluate the moral legitimacy of a relationship but to ensure protection where credible threats exist.
“Their right to freedom and/or right to life and personal liberty deserve protection… since both the petitioners being consenting adults have approached this Court,” the judge noted.
Nature of Relationship Not Relevant
Addressing the sensitive issue of the petitioners being legally married to others, the court firmly rejected the idea that such circumstances could disqualify them from seeking protection.
It held that examining marital history or engaging in moral policing falls outside the scope of judicial review in cases involving threats to life and safety.
READ: Bombay High Court Quashes ₹1,100 Crore MMRDA Demand on Reliance, Orders Refund with Interest
Live-In Agreement Not Decisive
The petitioners had executed a Memorandum of Understanding to formalize their live-in arrangement. However, the court clarified that determining the legal validity of such an agreement was unnecessary in a writ petition under Article 226.
The focus, it said, must remain strictly on safeguarding life and liberty, not on adjudicating the legality of personal arrangements.
Police Directed to Provide Protection
Taking note of assurances from the authorities, the court directed the local police to ensure immediate and adequate protection to the couple.
The petitioners were permitted to approach officers at Police Station Lodhi Colony, including the Station House Officer and beat staff, whenever required. The court also instructed that if the couple relocates, they must inform the relevant police station within three days to ensure continued protection.
Broader Implications
The ruling reinforces a consistent judicial trend recognizing the rights of consenting adults in live-in relationships, even in socially sensitive or unconventional circumstances.
Legal experts say the judgment underscores a crucial principle: that constitutional protections are not contingent on societal approval of personal relationships.
By clearly stating that marital status is irrelevant in matters of life and liberty, the Delhi High Court has strengthened the legal shield available to individuals facing threats due to their personal choices—placing the rule of law firmly above moral or social scrutiny.
READ: Allahabad High Court Awards Rs 8 Lakh Compensation for Death of Unborn Child in Train Accident
