MP High Court Upholds Major Couple’s Right to Reside Together, Flags Concerns Over Youthful Live-In Relationships

Introduction

In a progressive ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recognized a major couple’s right to reside together, even though one partner was under the marriageable age. The Court emphasized respecting individual choices and safeguarding constitutional rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees life and personal liberty. The judgment reiterates that while such relationships may lack societal acceptance, they are legally protected.

---

Background

The petition involved a 19-year-old woman who chose to live with her partner, citing an unpleasant home environment. Despite being of legal age, the male petitioner was under 21, the statutory minimum age for marriage. Counsel for the petitioners referred to Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, which upheld live-in relationships for individuals of majority age.

The state argued against granting protection, citing the young couple’s age. However, the Court relied on Lata Singh v. State of UP, which stated that live-in relationships, while not socially accepted, cannot be classified as criminal.

---

Key Points

1. Safeguarding Choices:
   The Court highlighted the importance of respecting personal choices, even in cases where the relationship exists outside traditional frameworks like marriage.
2. Protection of Rights:
   The judgment ensured the petitioners’ rights to life and personal liberty, underscoring the importance of shielding individuals from societal and familial interference.
3. Distinction Between Marriage and Cohabitation:
   While marriage is governed by statutory age restrictions, cohabitation is protected under constitutional guarantees of personal liberty for adults.

---

Recent Developments

The Court’s decision aligns with legal protections under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which recognizes live-in relationships as “domestic relationships.” This ensures women in such partnerships have legal protection against abuse.

In Soniya and Anr. v. State of Haryana, the Court affirmed that once a major chooses their partner, no third party has the right to interfere in their peaceful life.

---

Conclusion

The ruling underscores India’s gradual shift towards recognizing live-in relationships, ensuring they are supported by legal and constitutional safeguards. It affirms that societal acceptance is secondary to the fundamental dignity and autonomy of individuals.

---

Also Read:

• Internship Opportunity at the Office of Radhika Gupta, AOR
• Internship Opportunity at Bettering Results
• Virtual Legal Internship Opportunity at Novo Nordisk
• Certificate Course on International Commercial Arbitration by NLU Delhi
• SC Judgment: An Unregistered Partnership Firm Cannot File a Suit for Money Recovery

Stay informed with more updates on legal developments and judicial decisions!