CURRENT AFFAIRS | 2 APRIL 2026
CLAT GK + PERSONAL LAW & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
– Article 21 — Right to life includes right to live with dignity
– DV Act 2005 — domestic relationship definition
– Indra Sarma v V.V. Sarma (2013) — live-in relationship guidelines
– S. Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) — morality vs law
– Article 14 — Equality before law
What Happened: Two Contradictory HC Verdicts in 5 Days
The Allahabad High Court delivered two strikingly contrasting verdicts on live-in relationships within the same week in March 2026, sparking a significant legal debate about personal liberty, morality, and the law.
Verdict 1 — 20 March 2026 (Restrictive View)
A single-judge bench declined to provide protection to a live-in couple, holding that a married person cannot enter into a live-in relationship without first obtaining divorce from their spouse. The court emphasized:
- Marriage creates legal rights that cannot be ignored
- Personal liberty is not unlimited — it must respect existing legal commitments
- Allowing such relationships without divorce would infringe upon the spouse’s rights, including the recognized right to companionship
Verdict 2 — 25 March 2026 (Liberal View)
A Division Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, hearing a plea from a live-in couple seeking protection, took a markedly different position. The case involved a woman from Shahjahanpur who was living with a married man voluntarily. Her mother had filed an FIR alleging the man had enticed her daughter away, and the woman feared “honour killing” from her family.
The bench held: “There is no offence of the kind where a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, with consent of the other person, can be prosecuted for any offence.”
When the woman’s family counsel argued it is an offence for a married man to live with another woman, the court made the landmark observation: “Morality and law have to be kept apart.”
The court granted interim protection from arrest and prioritized the couple’s safety.
1. Article 21 — Right to Life and Dignity: The Supreme Court has expanded Art 21 to include the right to live with dignity, which encompasses the right to make personal choices about relationships and partners.
2. DV Act 2005 — Section 2(f): The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act defines “domestic relationship” to include a “relationship in the nature of marriage”, thereby extending legal protection to women in live-in relationships.
3. Article 14 — Equality: The right to equality is relevant in determining whether live-in partners should receive equal treatment and protection under law.
4. Indra Sarma v V.V. Sarma (2013): The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines for when a live-in relationship qualifies as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” — including duration, shared household, pooling of resources, domestic arrangement, and social presentation as a couple.
5. S. Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010): The SC held that living together and pre-marital sex between consenting adults is not a criminal offence, establishing the principle that morality and criminality are distinct.
The Legal Grey Area
The two verdicts — issued by different benches of the same High Court within 5 days — highlight a fundamental legal grey area in Indian law. There is no specific legislation governing live-in relationships in India. The legal framework has evolved primarily through judicial interpretation:
- DV Act 2005 recognizes “relationships in the nature of marriage” but does not define live-in relationships per se
- SC judgments have progressively liberalized the approach, but lower courts retain significant discretion
- No uniform standard exists for when a married person’s live-in relationship attracts legal consequences versus when it is protected under Art 21
– Art 21 Expansion: The right to personal liberty now encompasses relationship choices. This is a frequently tested area in CLAT legal reasoning passages
– Morality vs Law: The HC’s observation that “morality and law have to be kept apart” reflects a key jurisprudential principle — law regulates conduct, not morality
– DV Act 2005: Section 2(f) and the concept of “relationship in the nature of marriage” is highly exam-relevant. Understand the Indra Sarma guidelines
– Judicial Inconsistency: The same HC delivering opposite verdicts in a week demonstrates the challenge of judge-dependent outcomes in India — a critical legal reasoning topic
Landmark Cases on Live-in Relationships
- Badri Prasad v Director of Consolidation (1978) — First SC case recognizing a live-in relationship of 50 years as valid marriage by presumption
- S. Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) — Living together is not an offence; morality and criminality are distinct
- Indra Sarma v V.V. Sarma (2013) — Comprehensive guidelines for “relationship in the nature of marriage” under DV Act
- Dhanu Lal v Ganesh Ram (2015) — Children born from live-in relationships are not illegitimate
| Restrictive Verdict | 20 March 2026 (Single Judge) |
| Liberal Verdict | 25 March 2026 (Division Bench) |
| Key Observation | “Morality and law have to be kept apart” |
| Key Legislation | DV Act 2005 — Section 2(f) |
| Key Case | Indra Sarma v V.V. Sarma (2013) |
| Constitutional Articles | Art 21, Art 14 |
L — Liberty under Art 21 (right to personal choices)
I — Indra Sarma guidelines (2013)
V — Violence Act 2005 (DV Act, Section 2(f))
E — Equality under Art 14
I — Inconsistency between bench verdicts
N — No specific legislation — judicial evolution only
Source: The Week, India TV News, The Federal — March 2026
Practice Quiz
Test your understanding with these 10 MCQs:
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
