CURRENT AFFAIRS | MARCH 29, 2026
CLAT GK + FAMILY LAW & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
The Allahabad High Court finds itself divided on a critical question of personal liberty: Can married persons enter into live-in relationships without first obtaining a divorce from their spouse? Two benches of the same court have delivered seemingly contradictory observations within the same month, highlighting the evolving and unresolved jurisprudence around live-in relationships in India. The case pits Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) against the statutory rights of existing spouses and societal morality.
What Happened?
Ruling 1 (March 20, 2026 — Single Judge, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh): The court dismissed a writ petition filed by a couple — both married to different partners — seeking protection. Justice Singh observed that “married persons cannot enter into a live-in relationship without seeking divorce from their spouse.” While acknowledging that “no one has the right to interfere in the personal liberty of two adults,” the court held that personal liberty is not absolute. A spouse has the statutory right to enjoy the company of his or her counterpart, and granting protection to a live-in couple where both partners are married would infringe this statutory right. The court noted that such protection could amount to protecting individuals against the commission of offences under the IPC.
Ruling 2 (March 25, 2026 — Division Bench, Justice JJ Munir & Justice Tarun Saxena): Just five days later, a division bench observed that “a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, by consent of the other person, is not a crime.” The court stated: “Morality and law have to be kept apart.” It granted protection to the couple and directed the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, to ensure their safety, making the SP personally accountable.
Legal Framework
- Article 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Supreme Court has expanded this to include the right to live with dignity, right to privacy, and the right to choose one’s partner.
- Article 19: Protection of six freedoms including freedom of movement and freedom of association — relevant to the right to cohabit with a partner of choice.
- Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 2(f) defines “domestic relationship” to include relationships “in the nature of marriage” — providing some legal protection to live-in partners.
- Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (2013): The Supreme Court categorized live-in relationships and held that not all live-in relationships qualify as “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the DV Act.
- S. Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010): The Supreme Court upheld the right to live-in relationship as part of Article 21, observing that living together is a right to life.
- D. Velusamy v D. Patchaiammal (2010): Laid down conditions for a “relationship in the nature of marriage” — the couple must hold themselves out as spouses, be of legal marriageable age, be otherwise qualified to marry, and have lived together voluntarily.
CLAT Exam Angle
- Family Law: The evolving jurisprudence on live-in relationships — particularly the distinction between “live-in relationship” and “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the DV Act 2005 — is a high-value CLAT topic.
- Constitutional Conflict: The tension between Art. 21 (personal liberty) and statutory rights of spouses creates excellent legal reasoning questions. The question of whether personal liberty is absolute is a perennial CLAT favorite.
- Landmark Cases: Indra Sarma, Khushboo, and Velusamy are must-know cases for CLAT family law sections.
- Contradictory Rulings: When two benches of the same HC differ, it creates a need for a larger bench reference — this procedural aspect is also tested in CLAT.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Ruling 1 (March 20) | Justice Vivek Kumar Singh — Married persons cannot enter live-in without divorce |
| Ruling 2 (March 25) | Justices JJ Munir & Tarun Saxena — Married man in live-in is not a crime |
| Key Issue | Art. 21 personal liberty vs statutory rights of spouse |
| DV Act 2005 | Sec. 2(f) — “relationship in the nature of marriage” |
| Key Precedent | Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (2013) — categorized live-in relationships |
| IPC Section 497 | Adultery — struck down by SC in Joseph Shine v Union of India (2018) |
Mnemonic: LIVEIN
Remember the key cases and provisions on live-in relationships:
- L — Liberty under Art. 21 (right to choose partner)
- I — Indra Sarma (2013) — categories of live-in relationships
- V — Velusamy (2010) — conditions for “relationship in nature of marriage”
- E — Enactment: DV Act 2005, Sec. 2(f)
- I — Individual freedom vs institutional marriage
- N — Not absolute: personal liberty has reasonable restrictions
Practice Quiz
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
