Allahabad High Court contradictions on live-ins and reductionism
Two diametrically opposite orders by different benches of the same High Court are a glaring example of how people are at the mercy of judges in personal matters litigation like divorce and live-in relationships.
It paints a dismal picture of law and justice in the country for personal freedom and individual rights advocates. And there’s a deeper problem which neither Govt nor Courts are acknowledging.
A single judge bench of Allahabad HC refused to give protection from interference to a live-in couple where both the partners were already married.
It said: If the petitioners are already married and have their spouse alive, he/she cannot be legally permitted to enter into live-in relationship with a third person without seeking divorce from the earlier spouse.”
Few days later, a division bench of the same HC ordered protection from interference to a live-in couple where one partner is married saying: morality and law have to be kept apart and a married man commits no offence by having a live-in relationship.
The single judge order is outrightly against the established position of law in Indra Sarma Vs VKV Sarma where in Supreme Court legally recognised the personal freedom of individuals to be in live-in relationships, including married persons.
The judgment only stopped short of giving maintenance and other legal remedies to a such partner which are available to a wife. But it doesn’t bar protection from interference.
That would be regressive and unconstitutional as it infringes one’s Right to Life protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The larger question that arises here is why such incidences are on rise? Blaming it on Western influence or depleting moral values is REDUCTIONISM.
Divorce is integral to marriage. Marriage may or may not work like all other relationships.
Times have changed a lot since 1955 when the concept of divorce was introduced in Hindu Marriage, but laws haven’t.
Divorce in India is a myth if you look at data. India has just one per cent divorce rate, though cases are increasing and Family Court boards each day run into 40/50 cases per day.
Govt and courts virtually make the remedy of divorce non-existent.
If it’s not by mutual consent, a person may lose his whole youth and life in fighting uptil Supreme Court.
To tell you the grimmer side, a lawyer can predict the fate of the case in Supreme Court/ court where he/she practices the moment he/she knows which bench or judge would hear the matter.
It’s totally at the mercy of the judge- his personal beliefs and moods. Contested divorce is a battle of life time in India.
The non-consenting partner has all the law by his/her side to keep it going forever for money or “teaching lesson”. What remedy a person wanting divorce is left with then? Live-in.
Had divorce been fast and at invocation of one party (no-fault theory divorce like in many countries), people in bad marriages wouldn’t be forced to opt for live-in while having a subsisting marriage.
In October 2025, Delhi HC issued summons to a spouse’s lover for compensation for interference in marriage and causing loss of affection and companionship between spouses on basis of a foreign tort (civil wrong) Alienation of Affection which was REPEALED in England in 1970.
The judge fell for populism and failed to apply his mind to the question that had there been affection and love, it was impossible for a third person to enter the marriage.
Extra marital relations are mostly an effect of bad marriage and not cause. Govt and courts must stop taking the divorcing spouse as gullible or wanton. People are reasonable and it is for them to decide what is best for them.
Everyone has a right to happiness and forcing people in toxic marriages is a state-sponsored misery. There’s immediate need to review divorce laws and timelines.
The writer practices law at Supreme Court; Views presented are personal.
