Married man in live-in relationship with another woman not crime, says Allahabad high court
&imwidth=600&imheight=450&format=webp&quality=medium "Married man in live-in relationship with another woman not crime, says Allahabad high court")
Allahabad High Court. Photograph: (Wikimedia Commons)
The high court noted that the woman, who claims to be facing threats from her family, had already submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police of Uttar Pradesh's Shahjahanpur.
In a surprising development, the Allahabad High Court said on Friday (March 27, 2026) that a married man staying in a live-in relationship with another woman is not a crime, adding that morality and law should be kept apart. A Division Bench of Justice Tarun Saxena and Justice JJ Munir was hearing a plea demanding protection of a live-in couple facing threats from the family of the woman, according to a Bar and Bench report.
"There is no offence of the kind where a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, by consent of the other person, can be prosecuted for any offence whatsoever. Morality and law have to be kept apart. If there is no offence under the law made out, social opinions and morality will not guide the action of the Court for protecting the rights of citizens," the court.
The high court noted that the woman, who claims to be facing threats from her family, had already submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police of Uttar Pradesh's Shahjahanpur. In her plea, the woman stated she is an adult and is staying with the man in a live-in relationship of her free will.
She further alleged that her parents and other relatives oppose the relationship and have issued death threats, raising concerns of a possible honour killing. "Apparently, no action has been taken on this complaint by the Superintendent of Police. To protect two adults living together is the duty of the Police. Particular obligations in this regard are cast upon the Superintendent of Police, as held by the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others, (2018) 7 SCC 192. This petition is supported by a joint affidavit of both the petitioners," the court added.
The woman's mother accused the man of forced marriage
Meanwhile, in an FIR filed at Jaitipur police station in Shahjahanpur, the woman’s mother accused the man, who is already married, of abducting her 18-year-old daughter to coerce her into marriage. The family’s counsel also argued that since the man is married, living with another woman amounts to an offence.
Trending Stories
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)
)
)
In response, the bench said, “There is no offence of the kind where a married man, staying with an adult in a live-in relationship, by consent of the other person, can be prosecuted for any offence, whatsoever. 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 for protecting the rights of citizens.”
The court added that the woman gave an application to the SP, Shahjahanpur, stating that she is an adult and is staying with the man of her own free will. “To protect two adults living together is the duty of the police. Particular obligations in this regard are cast upon the Superintendent of Police, as held by the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and others… This petition is supported by a joint affidavit of both petitioners,” the court stated in the order.
The woman’s family had also filed a case against the man, alleging that he had abducted her to force her into marriage. In its March 25 order, a division bench comprising Justices JJ Munir and Tarun Saxena directed the woman’s relatives to refrain from causing any physical harm to the couple.
The court further instructed that the family must not enter the couple’s residence or attempt to contact them, either directly, through electronic communication, or via third parties. Additionally, the bench held the Superintendent of Police, Shahjahanpur, personally accountable for ensuring the safety and protection of the petitioners.
