Live-In Relationship-With One Of The Partners Being Below 21

The Writ Jurisdiction Of This Court Cannot Be Invoked To Dilute Or Circumvent The Operation Of The Statute By Such Couple In Which One Of The Two Is Minor: Allahabad High Court:

XXXXVs. Vs. State of UP,

Writ-C No. - 469 of 2026,

Allahabad High Court Judgment Dated-04.05.2026,

Held,”42.In view of the foregoing discussion, the issue framed is answered in the following terms: (i) This Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot grant protection to a live-in relationship in a manner that confers legitimacy upon, or facilitates the continuation of, a relationship which, in substance, operates as a substitute for a marriage that is presently impermissible under the statutory framework governing capacity to marry.(ii) At the same time, the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 must be preserved. Even if such a relationship does not receive legal recognition, the individuals concerned remain entitled to protection against harm, illegal detention, abduction, or coercion. (iii) It is further held that neither parents, guardians, nor statutory authorities including the Child Marriage Prohibition Officers can be restrained from taking lawful steps in accordance with the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and other applicable laws, provided that such action remains within the bounds of law.43.Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that petitioner no.2, being below twenty-one years of age, is statutorily classified as a “child” for the purposes of marriage. The writ petition does not disclose any specific incident, date, time or identifiable act of threat, abduction, detention or coercion attributable to the parents or guardians of the petitioners. No contemporaneous complaint to the police or any competent authority alleging such acts has been placed on record. The pleadings are wholly general and unsupported by particulars. Such vague and omnibus allegations do not warrant the issuance of any general order of restraint against the parents or guardians of the petitioners in exercise of writ jurisdiction.44.The petitioners are always at liberty to approach the police authorities with a complaint in respect of any specific unlawful acts such as threats, violence, coercion or illegal restraint, whereupon the authorities shall act in an expeditious manner in terms of the Government Order dated 31.08.2019, as noticed in Smt. Samiya and Another v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 41804 of 2025. However, such protection cannot extend to restraining parents, guardians or statutory authorities from taking lawful steps under the applicable statutory framework.45.The writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to dilute or circumvent the operation of the statute.46.In view of the above, no case is made out for grant of the reliefs as prayed, and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.”

[Full Allahabad High Court Judgment]

Kindly CLICK HERE, call our helpline at (+91) 95-99-633-606, or e-mail us at info@hellocounsel.com if you wish to talk to a lawyer or are facing any other Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empaneled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.