Anju and Another v. State of U.P., 2026
It emphasized that a spouse has a statutory right to consortium, which cannot be overridden by entering into another relationship.

Judgement Details
Court
Allahabad High Court
Date of Decision
27 March 2026
Judges
Justice J.J. Munir & Justice Tarun Saxena
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioners (a man and a woman) filed a writ petition seeking police protection.
-
Both petitioners were already legally married to different spouses, and neither had obtained a decree of divorce.
-
They claimed to be living together in a live-in relationship and feared threats to their life from family members.
-
They sought a writ of mandamus directing authorities not to interfere and to provide protection.
-
The State opposed the petition, arguing that:
-
Their relationship was illegal in the absence of divorce.
-
Granting protection would indirectly support a criminal offence (bigamy).
-
Division Bench Case (Contrasting View):
-
In a separate but similar matter, a live-in couple (an 18-year-old woman and a married man) sought protection from threats by the woman’s family.
-
The Division Bench found a prima facie threat to life and liberty.
-
A criminal case had been registered under Section 87 BNS.
Issues
-
Whether a person already married with a living spouse can legally enter into a live-in relationship without obtaining divorce?
-
Whether such persons have a legally enforceable right to seek protection under a writ of mandamus?
-
Whether granting protection would amount to supporting an offence under Sections 494/495 IPC (bigamy)?
-
Whether personal liberty under Article 21 can override statutory marital rights of a spouse?
-
Whether courts can grant police protection to live-in couples despite moral or legal objections?
Judgement
Single Judge Judgment – Justice Vivek Kumar Singh
-
The Court held that although personal liberty allows individuals to choose partners, such liberty is not absolute.
-
It emphasized that a spouse has a statutory right to consortium, which cannot be overridden by entering into another relationship.
-
The Court ruled that:
-
A person cannot legally enter into a live-in relationship while still married and without obtaining a divorce decree.
-
Doing so may amount to offences under Sections 494/495 IPC.
-
-
It held that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when there exists a legal and enforceable right.
-
Since the petitioners’ relationship was not legally protected, they had no enforceable right to seek protection.
-
The Court clarified that:
-
Courts cannot issue directions that defeat statutory provisions or penal laws.
-
-
Accordingly, the Court refused to grant protection and disposed of the petition.
-
However, it allowed liberty to approach the Superintendent of Police in case of actual violence.
Division Bench Judgment – Justices J.J. Munir & Tarun Saxena
-
The Division Bench adopted a liberal and rights-based approach.
-
It held that morality and law must remain separate, and courts must focus on protection of fundamental rights.
-
The Court observed that:
-
Even if one partner is married, living together with consent does not automatically constitute an offence.
-
-
It found a prima facie threat to the couple’s life and liberty.
-
The Court granted interim protection, including:
-
Direction that petitioners shall not be arrested
-
Restraining family members from causing harm or interference
-
Prohibiting contact via any means (direct/indirect)
-
Making the Superintendent of Police personally responsible for safety
-
-
Notices were issued, and further proceedings were kept pending.
Held
Single Judge:
-
Live-in relationship during subsisting marriage is not legally permissible.
-
No mandamus can be issued in absence of a legal right.
-
Courts cannot protect actions that may amount to bigamy.
Division Bench:
-
Protection of life and liberty under Article 21 can be granted irrespective of marital status.
-
Consensual live-in relationships may still deserve constitutional protection.
-
Morality cannot override fundamental rights.
Analysis
-
The case highlights a direct judicial conflict within the same High Court.
-
The Single Judge approach prioritises:
-
Statutory marital rights
-
Legality over personal autonomy
-
Prevention of bigamy-related offences
-
-
The Division Bench approach emphasises:
-
Fundamental rights (Article 21)
-
Individual autonomy and choice
-
Separation of law from morality
-
-
The divergence reflects a broader constitutional debate between:
-
Social order vs personal liberty
-
-
The Division Bench aligns with progressive jurisprudence protecting live-in relationships, while the Single Judge adopts a strict legalistic view.
-
This conflict may require eventual clarification by a larger bench or the Supreme Court.