On Friday, March 27, 2026, the Allahabad High Court ruled that a married man living in a consensual live-in relationship with another adult does not commit a criminal offence. The Division Bench, comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, emphasised that the judiciary’s duty to protect constitutional rights must remain independent of societal notions of morality.
The ruling came during a hearing for a protection plea filed by a couple from Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, who alleged they were facing death threats and the risk of “honour killing” from the woman’s family. While the family’s counsel argued that cohabiting while married is an offence, the court clarified that no law prohibits such a consensual arrangement between adults.
Separating Morality From The Rule Of Law
The case, Anamika and another v State of UP and Others, arose after the woman’s mother lodged an FIR under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alleging her 18-year-old daughter had been “lured away” by the man.
However, the woman submitted an affidavit stating she is an adult living with the man of her own free will. Rejecting the argument that the man’s marital status rendered the relationship criminal, the Bench stated:”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.”
The court further noted that social opinions cannot guide judicial action when no legal violation is established, reinforcing the distinction between what society deems “immoral” and what the law deems “illegal.”
Police Accountability and Precedent
Critiquing the lack of administrative action, the High Court pointed out that the woman had previously approached the Superintendent of Police (SP) in Shahjahanpur for protection, yet no safety measures were provided.
The Bench reminded the authorities of their “fundamental duty” to protect adults living together, citing the Supreme Court’s mandate in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018). Consequently, the court granted the couple interim protection from arrest and made the SP personally responsible for their security.
It also restrained the woman’s family from contacting the couple or entering their home, highlighting a growing judicial trend in India that prioritises individual liberty under Article 21 over traditional family control.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we believe that the hallmark of a maturing democracy is the ability of its legal system to safeguard personal agency against the tides of social dogma. While the complexities of marriage and the emotional fallout of “parallel relationships” are undeniable, the use of criminal law and the threat of violence to settle moral disputes is a regressive path.
We advocate for a society rooted in empathy, dialogue, and harmony, where the safety of individuals is never sacrificed at the altar of “honour.” This judgment serves as a vital reminder that while society may judge, the law must protect.
True social change comes not through coercion, but through respecting the dignity of every adult to make their own life choices.
