The Allahabad High Court has observed that a married man entering into a live-in relationship with another adult woman does not, by itself, constitute a criminal offence, emphasizing that questions of personal morality cannot automatically be converted into issues of criminal liability. The Court clarified that while such relationships may have civil or matrimonial consequences, they do not attract penal provisions in the absence of specific statutory violations.
The observation was made by Justice Saurabh Srivastava while dealing with a petition filed seeking protection from criminal proceedings arising out of objections raised to a consensual live-in relationship involving a married man and an adult woman.
Case Title
Applicant v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another
(Application seeking protection from criminal proceedings arising out of live-in relationship)
The petition was considered in the context of allegations raised against the parties on moral grounds rather than specific criminal conduct.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed objecting to a live-in relationship between an adult woman and a man who was already legally married. It was alleged that continuation of the relationship was improper and should invite criminal consequences.
The applicants approached the High Court seeking protection from coercive action by authorities, arguing that the relationship was consensual and between adults, and therefore could not form the basis of criminal prosecution in the absence of allegations falling within the scope of any penal provision.
Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a relationship may be socially disapproved or inconsistent with conventional expectations of marital conduct.
The State opposed the petition and argued that the allegations required examination in accordance with law.
What the Allahabad High Court Observed
While examining the matter, the High Court observed that the criminal justice system cannot be used to enforce social morality where the conduct in question does not constitute an offence under statutory law.
Justice Saurabh Srivastava noted in substance that:
Morality and criminality operate in different spheres, and courts cannot treat perceived moral wrongdoing as a criminal offence unless the statute clearly provides so.
The Court emphasized that consensual relationships between adults, even where one party is already married, do not automatically attract criminal liability unless they fall within specific offences defined under law.
Accordingly, the Court granted relief to the applicants by protecting them from unwarranted coercive action in connection with the allegations raised.
Distinction Between Matrimonial Wrong and Criminal Offence
The High Court clarified that entering into a live-in relationship during subsistence of marriage may have consequences under matrimonial law, including proceedings relating to divorce or cruelty, but does not by itself constitute a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court noted that criminal prosecution requires fulfilment of statutory ingredients of specific offences such as cheating, cruelty, bigamy, or abetment, depending on the facts of individual cases. In the absence of such allegations, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to misuse of the process of law.
The Bench reiterated that personal relationships between consenting adults fall within the domain of individual autonomy unless they violate express provisions of penal law.
Legal Position on Live-In Relationships Between Adults
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court of India, have repeatedly recognised that live-in relationships between consenting adults are not unlawful and fall within the scope of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Allahabad High Court relied on this settled jurisprudence to underline that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because a relationship deviates from socially accepted norms.
The Court emphasized that protection of personal liberty extends to choices relating to companionship and cohabitation between adults.
Limits of Criminal Law in Regulating Personal Relationships
The judgment reiterates a consistent judicial principle that criminal law must not be used as a tool to regulate private consensual relationships unless statutory provisions clearly define such conduct as an offence.
The Court observed that expanding the scope of criminal liability to include moral disapproval of personal relationships would undermine constitutional protections relating to dignity, privacy, and autonomy.
It further noted that courts must exercise caution while entertaining complaints based solely on objections to consensual adult relationships.
Implications of the Judgment
The ruling reinforces the distinction between moral considerations and legal culpability in matters involving personal relationships. Legal experts note that the decision clarifies that live-in relationships involving consenting adults—even where one party is married—do not automatically attract criminal consequences in the absence of statutory violations.
The judgment is expected to guide lower courts dealing with similar complaints seeking criminal action based on objections to adult consensual relationships.
By reiterating that morality and criminal law operate in separate domains, the Allahabad High Court reaffirmed constitutional protections governing personal autonomy and limits on the use of penal provisions in private relationship disputes.
Also Read: 81% Women Lawyers Say Their Career Path Is Tougher Than Male Colleagues, 34% Report Gender Bias at Work: SCBA National Survey
Join Our WhatsApp Channel: Click here to Join
