Court reiterates constitutional right of consenting adults to choose partners and cohabit, ordering assistance against family interference.
New Delhi, March 3, 2026: A single-judge Bench of the Saurabh Banerjee at the Delhi High Court has held that two consenting adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to protection from threats and harassment by family members, emphasising that parents cannot lawfully interfere with such relationships.
The order came in a petition filed by a couple alleging threats and interference from the woman’s father because they were living together in a live-in relationship. The couple sought police protection to ensure their safety and personal liberty.
Case Background
The petitioners approached the Delhi High Court after the woman’s father allegedly threatened them and made their lives “jeopardised” due to their live-in relationship. The couple, both born in 2006 and 2007 respectively, asserted that they are consenting adults who had voluntarily chosen to cohabit and had executed a live-in relationship agreement in February 2026.
In their plea, the couple contended that they were being harassed and intimidated, and that their fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, governing freedom and personal liberty, were under threat.
Legal Issue
The key legal issue before the court was whether consenting adults in a live-in relationship can claim protection under law against threats and harassment by family members, even in the absence of a formal marital bond. The petition required analysis of personal liberty rights, free choice of partner, and the scope of police protection for live-in couples.
Court’s Ruling
Justice Banerjee allowed the petition and directed local police officials, including the Station House Officer (SHO) and beat constables, to provide necessary protection to the couple in accordance with the law. The court clarified that the petitioners were free to contact police authorities whenever they faced threats or harassment.
The court also issued directions that if the couple changed their place of residence to another police jurisdiction, they must inform the concerned SHO within three days, ensuring that protection continues seamlessly.
Reasoning of the Court
The High Court framed its reasoning around constitutional guarantees, stating that the right of two consenting adults to choose and reside with partners of their choice is an extension of their personal liberty and freedom. It observed that the live-in relationship, though not legally equivalent to marriage, is akin to it in terms of personal choice and mutual consent.
The court placed reliance on settled jurisprudence under Articles 19 and 21, which protect individual autonomy and the freedom to make personal life choices without undue interference. The judgment echoed the principle that private consensual relationships between adults cannot be subjected to familial coercion or threats.
The Bench emphasised that no third party, including parents, relatives, or friends, is entitled to cause hindrance, interference, or threats that jeopardise the couple’s life or liberty.
Practical Implications
- Police Protection Obligations: Police authorities must now proactively extend protection to consenting adult couples in live-in relationships when credible threats from family members are shown, reflecting the constitutional duty to safeguard life and liberty.
- Live-In Relationships Jurisprudence: The ruling reinforces existing jurisprudence recognizing live-in relationships as a facet of personal liberty, consistent with prior judicial pronouncements affirming adults’ right to choose partners irrespective of societal or familial opposition.
- Clarifying Rights of Adults: By underscoring that parents or relatives have no legal authority to interfere in the private affairs of consenting adults, the order strengthens legal protection for personal relationships, even outside formally recognised marriages.
- Consistency with Constitutional Values: The court’s emphasis on Articles 19 and 21 situates the right to cohabit with a partner within the broader contours of individual autonomy and dignity protected by the Constitution, aligning with precedent from other High Courts that have granted protection in similar circumstances.
The judgment adds clarity on the entitlement of consenting adult couples in live-in relationships to protection from familial threats and interference, affirming that personal liberty and freedom to choose a partner are constitutional rights that extend beyond formal marriage.
