Kiran Raj

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a judgment delivered on December 30, 2024, addressed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning the protection of life and liberty for two individuals engaged in a live-in relationship. The matter was adjudicated by Justice Vivek Jain, who examined the legal and constitutional issues pertaining to the rights of consenting adults to cohabit without formal marital ties.

The petitioners, a young couple, argued that their decision to live together was consensual and within the bounds of their legal rights as adults under Indian law. Petitioner No. 1, the female partner, stated that she had chosen to leave her family home following the demise of her biological mother, as the atmosphere in her house was not conducive to her well-being. Petitioner No. 2, the male partner, despite being below the statutory marriageable age of 21, asserted his right to cohabit with a partner of his choice, as both were above the age of 18, the legal threshold for attaining majority.

In support of their petition, counsel for the petitioners referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018) 16 SCC 602, which recognized the right of consenting adults to live together outside wedlock even if they are not competent to marry. The petitioners also invoked Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475 and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192 to substantiate their claim that their personal autonomy, as protected under constitutional rights, must be upheld against societal pressures.

The State, however, opposed the petition, arguing that providing judicial protection to such a relationship, particularly involving a male partner not eligible for marriage under statutory law, would contradict societal norms and potentially disrupt the social fabric. The State's counsel also highlighted concerns about the couple’s age and questioned their emotional and economic preparedness for such a relationship.

After examining the submissions and precedents, the Court observed: “This Court is inclined to allow the present petition despite the fact that Petitioner No. 2 is less than 21 years of age because both the petitioners are shown to be major being above 18 years of age, and their choice needs to be protected from external forces.” 

At the same time, the Court expressed its apprehension regarding the emotional and economic maturity of the petitioners, particularly given their young age. Justice Jain noted: “This Court expresses its concern over the choice of the petitioners to enter into a live-in relationship at such a tender age as they may not be emotionally fully mature and economically fully independent. The petitioners are expected to exercise maturity while getting such protection from this Court.”

The Court directed the respondents, including the police authorities, to safeguard the petitioners' life and liberty and to address any grievances raised by them. Additionally, the authorities were instructed to verify the age of the petitioners to ensure the legitimacy of their claims.

Case Title: Anjali Kushwah and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 41033 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vivek Jain

[View/Download order]