Anuja AgrawalDecember 29, 2025 12:26 PM IST First published on: Dec 29, 2025 at 12:26 PM ISTIt is the duty of the state to protect the life and liberty of adults, notwithstanding their choices that might defy social expectations and norms of morality. In providing relief to this effect to petitioners in live-in-couples vs the State of UP, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated a well-established judicial understanding of the Constitution in cases of non-marital cohabitation.While there is a longer history of couples seeking state protection in order to enter a marriage of choice, such a course being pursued by couples in non-marital relations is relatively new. These cases have been coming to Indian courts for the last many years. During the pandemic, a rise was observed, especially in states like Punjab and Haryana. It is apparent that adults face significant resistance from their families when they make partnership choices, and hence, they expect support and endorsement from the state.AdvertisementWhat is therefore worrisome is that the judgment in live-in-couples vs the State of UP has been delivered against the backdrop of the state authorities’ resistance. Unlike cases from other states, the state counsel in UP opposed the petitioners’ writs on the grounds of live-in-relationships being contrary to Indian social fabric and cited the undesirability of this being a substitute for marriage. By making a strict distinction between law and morality, the Allahabad court has reminded the state of its duty to uphold the law rather than indulging in moral policing.The HC’s reiteration that living in non-marital relations is not breaking any law is also significant in light of the recent legislative attempts to regulate live-in-relations. Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code, which came into force in January 2025, is the first piece of legislation that made a controversial move. In the name of protecting the interests of women and children, it extended state surveillance and potentially criminalised couples in live-in relations. Its provisions have been challenged in the Uttarakhand High Court.Notably, the Allahabad case relies heavily on constitutional safeguards that citizens enjoy. But it is also worth noting that this judgment too stops short of reiterating that all couples, irrespective of caste, religion and creed, enjoy such constitutional freedoms.AdvertisementWhile referring to the 2023 case of Kiran Rawat vs State of UP in which such protection was denied to an inter-religious couple in a live-in-relationship, the Allahabad bench has said that while that “judgment was not passed in consonance with the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” “the facts of the present cases are entirely different from the facts of that case.” It is not clear in what respect the Kiran Rawat case is different, except in that it involved an interfaith couple. Live-in relationships of interfaith couples still carry the anxiety that has not been resolved by the present judgment.most readIt is also significant that the court, as well as the UP’s state counsel, have taken the position that live-in-relations are a means of evading social obligations and responsibility. The assumption that where there is no force of law there is nothing to bind people ignores other sources of social obligation. It also ignores the fact that the law is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to even ensure fulfillment of marital obligations. However, the legal obligations are certainly a cause for resistance to marriage and a preference for live-in relationships. Such resistance should not be equated with a desire to bear no responsibility.While many questions remain, this judgment is a welcome addition to the rapid expansion of litigation and judicial engagement with live-in relationships. Most of the legal and judicial discourse on live-in relationships has been preoccupied with how such relations conform to or depart from accepted forms of marriage. But the current judgment stays clear of such questions in asserting that the Constitution and judicial precedents are robust in support of adults making choices about their intimate partnerships.The writer is professor, Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi