New Delhi: A is married to B but is in a live-in relationship with C—this equation, once criminalised, now presents an evolving legal area.
High courts have over the better part of the last decade issued conflicting rulings on the legality of live-in relationships of married individuals, largely in response to petitions of couples seeking protection from family threats, social vigilantism, and police inaction.
The legal divergence became especially apparent this March, when two benches of the Allahabad High Court reached opposite conclusions on whether such relationships deserved legal protection.
The legal landscape shifted in 2018, when the Supreme Court decriminalised adultery in Joseph Shine vs Union of India. Since then, married individuals in separate live-in relationships have increasingly approached the courts in various matters.
Though data on live-in relationships is limited—and nearly absent for cases involving married individuals—court records suggest these arrangements are far from rare.
Advocate S. Selvakumari, a lawyer at the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, told ThePrint, “We see it everywhere now. From small towns to metros, couples are choosing to live together despite being ‘on paper’ married to others. It’s no longer just a secret affair; it’s a household with shared groceries, rent, and dreams, even if the law hasn’t caught up.”
“When the Supreme Court decriminalised adultery, it didn’t necessarily change how much people fall in love or out of it; it changed how much they are willing to hide.”
Once legally ignored, live-in relationships now enjoy a degree of legal recognition.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the right of consenting adults to choose their partners and living arrangements under Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (personal liberty).
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, extends safeguards to women in relationships “in the nature of marriage”.
While not equivalent to marriage, live-in relationships have been consistently held as legal.
However, complications arise when such relationships involve individuals who are also legally married.
Though decriminalisation removed the criminal penalty for adultery, its social stigma remains. Married individuals in separate live-in relationships are often exposed to ostracisation and threats.
Moreover, adultery remains a civil wrong and a ground for divorce under laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Zohra Master, a couples’ psychotherapist, said prolonged and difficult divorce proceedings often lead individuals to form new relationships in the interim.
For the spouse left behind, she noted, extramarital relationships can erode emotional and financial security, often triggering grief, depression, and anxiety.
Speaking to ThePrint, Advocate Rohit Bharadwaj, a lawyer at the Delhi High Court, said, “It is advisable that individuals first dissolve their existing marriages, as continuing otherwise can lead to significant legal and practical complications—especially concerning the rights of the spouse, children, maintenance, and other matrimonial issues.”
Even so, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to choose one’s partner. It has directed police to protect couples from family violence, recognised live-in relationships under Article 21, and affirmed the legitimacy of children born from such unions.
These principles continue to guide courts as they attempt to balance individual liberty with existing marital obligations.
Also Read: Will Gujarat Dy CM’s ‘mandatory parental consent for marriage’ proposal withstand legal scrutiny?
Petitions for protection
Most commonly, couples approach High Courts via writ petitions, seeking protection from family intimidation or honour-based threats. In these cases, the judicial divide is stark. High courts exercise their discretion when applying rights, thereby setting precedents in specific circumstances before them.
In response to such petitions, the Delhi High Court has largely taken a liberal approach, emphasising fundamental rights. In April 2026, a single bench of the court, hearing a writ petition by two married persons in a live-in relationship, held that all Indian citizens were entitled to constitutional protection. Justice Banerjee said the marital status of consenting adults was not a germane factor in a prayer for protection, issuing directions to the police.
“An urban bias is definitely present” in live-in relationships, said psychotherapist Master: metro cities give couples anonymity, allowing them to dodge societal norms.
The Allahabad High Court witnesses a high volume of petitions for protection; however, orders vary greatly by bench, with no consistent standard emerging.
In the latest development, the court, in March 2026, saw a single-judge bench and a division bench issue conflicting orders within days of each other.
On 20 March 2026, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh refused a live-in couple’s writ petition for protection, noting that the man was married to another person. The single-judge bench held that a married person cannot be legally permitted to enter into a live-in relationship with a third person without obtaining a divorce from their spouse. “The freedom of one person ends where the statutory right of another person starts… the freedom of one person cannot encroach upon or outweigh the legal right of another person,” it said.
Five days later, on 25 March 2026, the division bench of Justices J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena held that no offence was made out in the case of two consenting adults living together, regardless of marital status. The division bench said, “Morality and law have to be kept apart. If no offence under the law is made out, social opinions and morality will not guide the action of the court in protecting the rights of citizens.” It then issued directions to the police to ensure the safety and security of the couple and restrain family interference.
“Courts have consistently held that the right to life and personal liberty includes the freedom to choose one’s partner, and these fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 extend equally to all individuals, regardless of their marital status,” Bharadwaj explained.
Meanwhile, frequent denials of protection have been noted in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
In Ritu Sethi v. State of Punjab, Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that “…by allowing such types of petitions, we are encouraging wrongdoing and, somewhere, promoting the practice of bigamy, which is otherwise an offence under Section 494 IPC, further violating the right of the other spouse and children under Article 21 to live with dignity.” Similarly, Justice Alka Sarin denied protection and termed a married live-in relationship an “unholy alliance”.
The Madras High Court has issued orders often citing the “sanctity of marriage” while dismissing petitions.
Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in 2023, stated, “Filing of the writ petition appears to us to be a device adopted to have the seal and signature of this court on the illegal act of the petitioner, transgressing the valid legal framework of his marriage.”
The Bombay High Court has also strictly applied the Supreme Court’s tests in determining the nature of the relationship, often denying protection.
In contrast, in 2025, a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that there was no law preventing an adult woman from living with a married man.
In January 2025, the Rajasthan High Court acknowledged the presence of these conflicting judgments. A single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand referred the issue to a larger bench, posing the question: “Whether a married person living with an unmarried person without dissolution of his/her marriage, or whether two married persons from different marriages living in a live-in relationship without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to protection orders from the court?”
While emphasising the need for Supreme Court intervention, Selvakumari stated, “Law should be a steady ground, but right now, for these couples, it feels like walking on shifting sand. We need a clear answer on whether ‘life’ (Article 21) always prevails over ‘social tradition’.”
Also Read: How Allahabad HC came to the rescue of 12 live-in interfaith couples after UP govt’s snub
Criminal cases
Disputes arising from extra-marital live-in relationships also include criminal matters, comprising spousal complaints and family disputes. At the same time, high courts continue to quash criminal cases lodged for bigamy.
In 2023, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court quashed rape charges against a man whose live-in partner was married to someone else. She held that this was not a case of rape on the false promise of marriage, as the complainant was already married. While dismissing the charge, she observed, “Morality, unless provided by law, cannot be enforced through law. Similarly, immorality cannot be punished by law unless so provided by a statute.”
Selvakumari, who was counsel in the case before Justice Sharma, said, “If both partners know a legal marriage is impossible because one is already married, the law assumes they are consenting adults who understand the stakes.” She highlighted that such relationships often involve persons caught in the “legal purgatory” of divorce proceedings.
There are also cases of internal rifts, where women in live-in relationships with married men claim protection under domestic violence laws and seek maintenance. Though the Supreme Court has extended domestic violence protections to live-in couples—provided the arrangement resembles a marriage through long-term cohabitation, financial dependence, a shared household, and public presentation as spouses—it has generally excluded relationships where one partner is already married to someone else.
In January 2026, a single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court held a woman petitioner ineligible for relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Justice Manjusha Deshpande said that awareness of the marital status of a partner before entering into the relationship rendered it more akin to concubinage than a relationship “in the nature of marriage”.
Months later, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court clarified that a married person in a live-in relationship would not attract the criminal offence of bigamy. The bench, while noting that live-ins remained legally distinct from marriage, quashed criminal proceedings against a married man who was in a live-in relationship with a third person.
“It is well settled that a consensual live-in relationship between two adults outside of their respective wedlocks does not constitute a criminal offence and cannot be criminalised, irrespective of prevailing moral views or social disapproval,” Bharadwaj said.
These tensions between constitutional personal liberty, statutory spousal rights, and social stigma has left the courts divided and the affected parties in limbo.
“Love is a big deal for human beings, commitment even more so,” Master said.
Her sentiment was echoed by Selvakumari: “At the heart of it, these cases show us that human emotions move much faster than the law ever can.”
Saumya Sharma is an alum of ThePrint School of Journalism, currently interning with ThePrint.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Can a live-in partner be charged for dowry harassment? Supreme Court examines the question