The Delhi High Court has upheld the right of consenting adults to choose their partners and live together without interference and said a consensual live-in relationship between adults can be treated as marriage for the purpose of protecting their liberty and choice. Police protection for the couple who approached it after they faced threats from the woman’s family over their relationship.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee gave the order on August 13 on the basis of a petition filed by the couple, both in their 30s. The couple had been living together for some time and were going to marry, the petition said. But the father and brother of the woman had been against the relationship and had repeatedly threatened the couple with violence.
The petitioners told the court that they had approached the local Station House Officer (SHO) seeking protection, but that no effective action had been taken on their complaint. With their safety and liberty allegedly under threat, the couple moved the Delhi High Court seeking appropriate protection from the police.
Justice Banerjee stressed that consenting adults have the fundamental right to decide who they want to live with. In it, the court judged that the couple had voluntarily entered into their relationship and that their choice could not be deterred by parents, relatives, friends or other members of society.
The High Court held that adults have the right to choose and reside with their partner of their choice without interference. It made clear that societal expectations, moral judgments or family opposition cannot override constitutionally protected individual liberty.
The court also highlighted the wider constitutional framework of marriage and personal choice. It said marriages are legal, regardless of caste, creed, colour, religion or faith in the eyes of consenting adults. If one tries to restrict such choices on the basis of societal morals and prejudices it is an infringement of fundamental rights and on the individual’s right to self-identity, it said.
The major aspect of the order was the court's observation that although the petitioners were not legally married, their status as consenting adults in a live-in relationship gave their relationship a legal dimension that warranted protection. Their live-in relationship was “akin to marriage” in the context of their right to live together by choice, the court said.
The court’s decision reflects the continued recognition of individual autonomy in relationships as the basis of Indian courts. All too often courts have held that an adult’s choice of partner is an important part of personal liberty. Such decisions are tied to constitutional protections, including the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Delhi High Court further noted that the Supreme Court has previously recognised the right of adults to reside together even when they are not married. The absence of a formal wedlock does not automatically deprive two adults of their right to live together according to their own wishes.
The court also pointed out legislative recognition of relationships outside traditional marriage. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides women in some relationships with some rights in the form of marriage. And legal and judicial decisions which are changing the legal understanding of relationships and the need to protect people from violence and abuse are in the context of this legislative framework.
Delhi High Court’s observations also come at a time of recent developments in the legal safety net of a live-in relationship. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court took into account the application of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code to some live-in relationships where the partners intend to marry. The development has reopened debate on the legal system of India in relation to relationships outside of marriage.
The Supreme Court also recognized live-in relationships as an increasingly accepted social reality, particularly in urban areas. As such relationships become more visible, courts have increasingly been called upon to reconcile traditional social expectations and constitutional rights and individual freedom.
The Delhi High Court’s new order does not mean that every live-in relationship is automatically equivalent to a legally registered marriage in every respect. But the observation is that consenting adults should not be subjected to threats, violence or unlawful interference for not living in the way their relationship does not meet the expectations of their families or society.
For the couple involved in the case, the immediate concern was their safety. The court directed police protection in order to guarantee that their basic rights to life, liberty and personal choice were not jeopardized by family members’ threats.
The judgment is important beyond the individual dispute. It reaffirms that adulthood comes with the power to make such important personal decisions as companionship and residence. Family discord, social pressure or moral objections alone can’t justify threats or coercion against adults exercising their lawful choices.
That is in line with wider judicial decisions regarding individual autonomy at the heart of relationship disputes. And it sends a clear message that consenting adults are free and their safety and liberty are something that requires enforcement in the law.
