No Protection for Live-In Relationship When One Partner Is Already Married: Reaffirmation of Legal and Social Principles
Introduction
The case of Nisha Kumari and Another v. State of Punjab and Others (CRWP-12096-2024) decided by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court on 16 December 2024 addresses whether an individual, who is already legally married and living with a different partner, can claim protection of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution while in a live-in relationship. The key issue before the Court was whether a live-in arrangement involving at least one married person has the same legal standing as a relationship “in the nature of marriage.” The petitioners, a 30-year-old woman (who has not divorced her spouse and has two children) and a 32-year-old man, sought protection against alleged threats from their families and the community.
Summary of the Judgment
Justice Sandeep Moudgil of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition, concluding that when one party to a live-in relationship remains married under the law, such a relationship does not have the essential characteristics of marriage. As a result, the petitioners cannot claim a legally protected status akin to marriage. The Court held that providing them with protection under Article 21 would indirectly encourage bigamy—a punishable offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code—and would violate the rights and dignity of the lawful spouse and children. Though the Court recognized the fundamental right to life and liberty, it clarified that this right must be exercised within the confines of existing legal obligations and social structures.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
1. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755
This Supreme Court decision was pivotal. It outlined how live-in relationships can, in certain circumstances, be deemed “in the nature of marriage,” offering protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). However, the Court in Indra Sarma made it clear that such a status generally does not extend to relationships where one or both partners are already married. The relationship here, being adulterous or bigamous, cannot be equated to marriage and thus does not enjoy protection under the DV Act.
2. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) 10 SCC 469
The Supreme Court laid down parameters for a live-in relationship to qualify for certain legal protections: the couple must present themselves publicly as spouses and both must be unmarried and eligible to enter into marriage. This case reinforced the idea that a live-in relationship involving a married individual fails to meet these criteria.
3. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438
Though primarily addressing the rights of transgender persons, the principle recognized here—each individual’s right to live with dignity—was invoked by the Court to emphasize that such fundamental rights cannot undermine established legal or social obligations. Granting protection to an extramarital live-in relationship would, in the Court’s view, curtail the dignity and rights of the lawful spouse and children.
4. Other Decisions Referenced
The Court also referred to the rulings of various High Courts (including decisions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Allahabad High Court) where protection was denied to couples in live-in relationships when one party was still legally married. These precedents consistently found that granting legal protection in such scenarios undermines the institution of marriage and promotes bigamy.
Legal Reasoning
The Court approached the matter through the lens of fundamental rights, social norms, and statutory provisions:
- Article 21 and Right to Life/Liberty: While every individual is entitled to protection of life and liberty, the Court underscored that this right must be reconciled with legal obligations toward existing spouses and children.
- Bigamy as an Offense (Section 494 IPC): Remaining in a marriage and simultaneously entering a new relationship can amount to bigamy, which is illegal. The Court was emphatic that its role is not to normalize or endorse bigamous arrangements.
- Live-In Relationship vs. Marriage: Drawing upon Indra Sarma, the Court concluded that a live-in relationship that overlaps an existing, valid marriage lacks the “nature of marriage” and is thus ineligible for the legal recognition and protection afforded to otherwise legitimate live-in partnerships.
- Social Fabric and Public Policy: Courts have a duty to preserve the social importance of the institution of marriage. Granting formal protection to an extramarital live-in relationship risks undermining public morality, trust, and legal frameworks that support family structures.
Impact
This judgment reaffirms that Indian courts will not protect live-in relationships when one of the partners is still legally married. Couples in such arrangements face potential criminal liability under bigamy laws and cannot invoke the protective umbrella typically afforded to legitimate live-in relationships under progressive legal developments. Consequently:
- Individuals already married must obtain a formal divorce before pursuing a legally recognized relationship with another partner.
- It reinforces social and moral obligations within the family structure, ensuring safeguarding of the first marriage and the children born of it.
- Future cases are likely to reference this decision to deny protection for “live-in relationships” that amount to adultery or bigamy.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Live-In Relationship “in the Nature of Marriage”: A live-in arrangement that functions similarly to a legally valid marriage, typically including aspects of mutual care, shared finances, and social acknowledgment as husband and wife. However, for it to attain partial legal recognition, neither partner can be married to someone else.
Bigamy (Section 494 IPC): A criminal offense in which a person who is already legally married enters into another marriage contract while their first marriage is still in effect. Although “adultery” has been decriminalized in India, bigamous relationships remain punishable.
Article 21 of the Constitution: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Though expansive, the judiciary interprets this right within a framework of concurrent duties and legal responsibilities. It does not extend to protecting relationships that violate other statutory prohibitions or the fundamental rights of third parties.
Hindu Marriage Act (HMA): Governs marriages among Hindus. Under HMA, a person remains legally married unless a decree of divorce is obtained. Even if spouses are estranged, they are still considered married until formal dissolution of marriage.
Conclusion
The Nisha Kumari and Another v. State of Punjab and Others judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the sanctity of marriage while balancing fundamental rights. Although live-in relationships may be granted legal recognition under limited, well-defined conditions, the Court is unequivocal in ruling that such protection and recognition is unavailable when one partner remains married. This stance preserves the social and legal institution of marriage and protects the interests of the lawful spouse and children. In practical terms, individuals already married must pursue a formal separation or divorce if they wish to form a new partnership within the bounds of legality.
Overall, this decision serves as a noteworthy precedent, guiding future cases that involve live-in relationships and reaffirming that the fundamental right to liberty must be harmonized with legal obligations and societal values.