Latest JudgementConstitution of IndiaIndian Penal Code, 1860Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

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.

Allahabad High Court·27 March 2026
Anju and Another v. State of U.P., 2026
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Allahabad High Court

Date of Decision

27 March 2026

Judges

Justice J.J. Munir & Justice Tarun Saxena

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Article 226, Constitution of India Article 21, Constitution of India Sections 494 and 495, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 87, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

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

  1. Whether a person already married with a living spouse can legally enter into a live-in relationship without obtaining divorce?

  2. Whether such persons have a legally enforceable right to seek protection under a writ of mandamus?

  3. Whether granting protection would amount to supporting an offence under Sections 494/495 IPC (bigamy)?

  4. Whether personal liberty under Article 21 can override statutory marital rights of a spouse?

  5. 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.