'Immoral and Illegal': Live-in relations not allowed for individuals below 18, orders Allahabad High Court

In an important judegement, Allahabad High Court has stated that individuals below the age of 18 are prohibited from engaging in live-in relationships, branding such acts not only as morally objectionable but also legally impermissible.

As per a ToI report, a division bench, comprising of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV, made this observation dismissing a petition lodged by a 17-year-old Muslim boy and his 19-year-old Hindu girl partner. The couple had pleaded to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against the boy for alleged abduction of the girl.

The bench said, "For a live-in relationship to be considered akin to a marital relationship, certain conditions must be met. Primarily, at least one person involved must be a legal adult (above the age of 18), even if they may not be eligible for marriage (below 21 years). Therefore, a minor cannot engage in a live-in relationship, deeming it not only morally objectionable but also legally unlawful."


The court further clarified that an individual below 18, who is an accused, cannot seek immunity based on their live-in relationship with an adult partner. The court emphasized, "Such an activity is prohibited by law and is therefore illegal."

The judiciary underscored the grave repercussions of permitting such actions, stating, "Endorsing such unlawful conduct would encourage illegal activities and be detrimental to societal well-being. Consequently, we decline to endorse such legally impermissible actions."

The court referenced a recent verdict, Kiran Rawat and another vs. State Of UP Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and others 2023, highlighting that the boy, being a Muslim, was involved in an impermissible relationship under Muslim law.

While live-in relationships are not proscribed by law, the court maintained that they lack legal protection. The bench acknowledged the right of consenting adults to lead their lives according to their choices, with a caveat that such liberty does not extend to minors.

"In the present case, the boy involved is not of legal age, being below 18 years. As a minor, he cannot engage in such a relationship," the court affirmed in its judgment dated July 11.