“‘Unmarried Major Parents Can Live Together’: Allahabad High Court Orders FIR, Police Protection for Interfaith Couple and Child Facing Threats from Woman’s In-Laws”
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Uttar Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit held that where a child’s biological parents, living in an interfaith live-in relationship, report threats from private individuals, the police must act in accordance with law. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Sambhal, to ensure the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) if approached by the parents and to examine whether protective measures are needed. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
The case arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the biological parents of a minor child. The petitioners submitted that they had been cohabiting since 2018 despite belonging to different religions and had a child, aged one year and four months, born out of this relationship.
The woman had previously been married, but her husband had passed away. Following his death, she began living with her current partner, the biological father of the child. The private respondents in the matter were members of the deceased husband's family—her erstwhile in-laws—who, according to the petitioners, had posed threats to their family life.
The petitioners contended that, despite repeated visits to the police station, local authorities had not registered an FIR against the private respondents. Furthermore, they alleged that they were repeatedly subjected to humiliation by the police when they tried to seek redress.
As part of the petition, the parents requested judicial intervention to ensure that law enforcement authorities comply with their legal duties, specifically the registration of an FIR and provision of protection if deemed necessary.
During the proceedings, the petitioners also submitted a Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.3 of 2025. After reviewing the accompanying affidavit, the Court found sufficient cause for allowing the application. The bench directed that the necessary impleadment be made the same day.
The Court noted the factual matrix and took into account that both parents are consenting adults and that they have been cohabiting for several years. The matter revolved around their fundamental rights under the Constitution and their grievances regarding police inaction despite perceived threats.
The Court also reviewed previous Supreme Court rulings which recognized the autonomy of consenting adults to live together, even outside the bounds of marriage. The petitioners relied on decisions such as Gyan Devi vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others [(1976) 3 SCC 234], Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another [(2006) 5 SCC 475], and Bhagwan Das vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2011) 6 SCC 396].
The core grievance before the Court was the refusal of police authorities to register a complaint despite allegations of threats to the life and liberty of the petitioners and their child. The Court acknowledged the lack of action on the part of the police and proceeded to determine appropriate legal redress.
The Division Bench recorded that both the parents are “major” and “entitled to live together, even if they have not undergone marriage.” The Court stated:
“In our view, under the Constitutional scheme the parents, who are major, are entitled to live together, even if they have not undergone marriage.”
Referring to earlier rulings, the bench stated:
“See: Gyan Devi vs. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others reported in (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Das vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2011) 6 SCC 396.”
Addressing the petitioners’ allegations against the police, the Court noted:
“The parents of the child submit that the police authorities are not willing to register the first information report against the private respondents and the police authorities time and again are humiliating them when they approach the police station for lodging the first information report.”
The Court examined the constitutional rights of individuals to cohabit and the corresponding legal obligations of the police to act on complaints of threat. The judges evaluated the factual contentions in light of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the applicable precedents cited.
The Court expressed concern regarding the apparent inaction of law enforcement despite consistent complaints by the petitioners. It observed that legal processes cannot be withheld arbitrarily, especially in matters concerning life, liberty, and the safety of a child.
The Court issued a categorical directive to the Superintendent of Police, Sambhal, stating:
“The Superintendent of Police, Sambhal is directed to ensure that the first information information report should be registered at Police Station Chandausi, District Sambhal, if the parents of the child approach the police station.”
In addition to registration of the FIR, the Court further ordered:
“The Superintendent of Police, Sambhal is also directed to look into the aspect whether any security is required to be provided to the child and the parents in accordance with law.”
Moreover, the Court mandated that police authorities adhere to established judicial precedent: “The authorities are also directed to act in accordance with the judgements indicated above.”
Having issued these directions, the Court concluded the proceedings: “With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Santosh Prajapati, Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi
Case Title: Re: State of U.P. and 7 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:50647-DB
Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 6408 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit
[Read/Download order]
