Reaffirming Adults’ Right to Cohabit Despite Legal Age Restrictions on Marriage
Introduction
This commentary examines the recent decision in Anjali Kushwah & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on December 30, 2024. The case was brought as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily seeking directions from the Court to safeguard the petitioners’ life and liberty.
The central issue pertains to two adults wishing to live together without contraction of marriage, notwithstanding the fact that one of the petitioners has not attained 21 years of age (the statutory age for a male to marry under Indian law). Alleging interference and threats from family and society, the petitioners approached the Court seeking protection.
The parties involved are:
- Petitioner No. 1: An adult female (above 18 years) who has lost her biological mother and seeks to live away from her family environment.
- Petitioner No. 2: An adult male (above 18 years but below 21, hence not meeting the statutory marriage age for men under Indian personal laws).
- Respondents: The State of Madhya Pradesh and other official authorities assumed to be responsible for ensuring the petitioners’ safety.
Against this backdrop, the Court’s decision throws light on the right of two consenting adults to cohabit, even when a formal marriage is not legally permissible.
Summary of the Judgment
The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and granted protection to the petitioners. While acknowledging that Petitioner No. 2 could not lawfully marry because he was below 21 years, the Court relied on precedents from the Supreme Court of India to conclude that two consenting adults have a right to live together even outside of wedlock.
The Court issued directions to the concerned police authorities (Respondents No. 2 to 4) to ensure that no one, including the petitioners’ families, poses a threat to their safety or liberty. Importantly, the Court expressed concern regarding the maturity of such young adults but recognized their choice and autonomy once they have attained majority (i.e., 18 years).
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The Court emphasized and built its reasoning on the following landmark rulings:
- Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, (2018) 16 SCC 602: Here, the Supreme Court recognized and upheld the rights of two adults (regardless of their competence to marry) to live together outside wedlock. This judgment underscored that consenting adults are entitled to their individual autonomy and personal liberty.
- Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475: This ruling clarified that adults who marry or live together of their own volition are entitled to protection from interference by society or family, reiterating that their fundamental rights under the Constitution of India must be safeguarded.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192: Although primarily dealing with decriminalization of consensual same-sex relationships, this judgment expanded the scope of personal autonomy and privacy. The principle of personal liberty and freedom from undue state or societal intrusion aligned with the Court’s perspective in the instant case.
These decisions collectively establish that personal agency, dignity, and privacy occupy an integral place in India’s constitutional framework and will be afforded protection under the law.
Legal Reasoning
The crux of the Court’s legal reasoning resides in the intersection of Article 226 of the Constitution of India (which empowers High Courts to issue orders to protect fundamental rights) and the principle that every adult has the right to personal liberty and choice in matters of marriage or cohabitation.
Specifically, the Court observed:
- Right to Life and Liberty: Even where statutory marriage conditions (such as age limits) are not met, once an individual crosses the threshold of majority (18 years), their choices regarding companionship and living arrangements form an integral part of their personal liberty.
- Role of Protective Writs: By invoking Article 226, the petitioners sought the High Court’s intervention to direct state authorities to shield them from potential harm. The Court reaffirmed its duty to safeguard fundamental rights, concluding that no external force could intrude into the private domain of two adults voluntarily choosing to live together.
- Societal Considerations vs. Individual Liberty: Although the Court noted that living in a relationship at a tender age might involve emotional and economic vulnerabilities, it concluded that such factors cannot override the constitutional privilege of choice and personal autonomy.
Impact on Future Cases and Legal Landscape
This decision reiterates a critical legal principle: the freedom of adults to cohabit is firmly protected under the Constitution, even when the stricter demands of the personal law framework concerning marriage age are not fulfilled. The Court has effectively underlined that:
- Live-in relationships, especially for adults above 18 but below the prescribed marriageable age, cannot be declared unlawful or immoral per se, and are entitled to protection of life and liberty.
- Law enforcement agencies must adopt a more sensitive approach toward adults seeking protection from familial or societal pressures, especially in the realm of personal relationships.
- Future legal challenges or societal objections cannot override the individual’s constitutionally guaranteed right to free choice in personal relationships. This stance strengthens the jurisprudence on live-in relationships and personal autonomy in India.
While the Court expressed its apprehensions about the preparedness and maturity of such individuals—particularly concerning their emotional and economic well-being—it refrained from denying fundamental rights based on hypothetical or paternalistic grounds.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Empowers High Courts to issue directives, orders, or writs to any person or authority, including government, within their territorial jurisdiction. It is often invoked to protect fundamental rights and to remedy illegal or unconstitutional acts by the state.
- Live-In Relationship: An arrangement where two individuals live together in a relationship resembling marriage, without formally registering or solemnizing their union. Indian courts, through several judgments, have gradually recognized the rights and entitlements arising from such relationships.
- Age of Majority vs. Age for Marriage: In India, individuals attain majority upon reaching 18 years, granting them certain legal rights (e.g., to vote, to enter contracts, etc.). However, personal laws set different marriageable ages: generally, 21 for men and 18 for women. Thus, a person can be an adult and still not meet the legal threshold for marriage if they are below this age.
- Fundamental Rights (Part III of the Indian Constitution): The Constitution guarantees certain rights, including the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21). Courts have interpreted “life and liberty” to include rights over one’s personal choices and autonomy, which extends to partnering and living arrangements.
Conclusion
The Anjali Kushwah & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. decision spotlights yet another judicial affirmation of personal autonomy, ensuring that adults—despite not meeting the formal age requirement to marry—enjoy the constitutional right to cohabit. By leveraging guiding precedents from the Supreme Court and emphasizing the protective mantle of Article 226, the Madhya Pradesh High Court underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding individual liberties against social and familial encroachment.
This judgment holds wider implications for India’s evolving legal landscape, particularly in relation to societal norms around marriage, cohabitation, and personal freedom. While the Court voiced reservations about the prudence of entering a live-in relationship at a tender age, it unequivocally positioned the right of choice above moralistic or paternalistic considerations. As a result, the ruling stands as an important precedent, balancing personal liberty and constitutional guarantees with the complexities of societal frameworks.
Comments