Live-In Couple Entitled to Police Protection from Parental Threats

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court in Kartik & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2026), held that two consenting adults residing together in a live-in relationship are entitled to police protection against threats and interference from family members, including parents.  

• The Court reaffirmed that the right to freely choose one's partner is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India,1950 (COI).  

What was the Background of Kartik & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioners, born in 2006 and 2007 respectively, were consenting adults who had been in a relationship since 2024 and were residing together at the time of the petition. 
• The couple had executed a Live-in Relationship Agreement dated February 17, 2026. 
• The father of petitioner no. 2 (the woman) was allegedly unhappy with the relationship and had been issuing threats, placing the lives and liberty of both petitioners in jeopardy. 
• The couple filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking police protection. 
• Central Issue: 
• Whether two consenting adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to police protection against threats and interference from family members, and whether such a relationship is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

Live-In Relationship Akin to Marriage in Constitutional Terms: 

• Justice Banerjee observed that while a live-in relationship is not legally equivalent to marriage, it shares a foundational similarity — it is a union between two consenting individuals, irrespective of caste, creed, colour, religion, or faith.  
• The Court held that the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom under Article 19 and the right to life and liberty under Article 21, both of which protect such relationships. 

No Authority to Interfere: 

• The Court categorically held that no person — including parents, relatives, or friends — has any right or authority to cause hindrance, interference, or threats to a consenting couple in a live-in relationship.  
• The fact that the couple had voluntarily executed a Live-in Relationship Agreement was noted as a further affirmation of their intent and responsibility. 

Right to Choose a Partner: 

• Justice Banerjee reaffirmed that both petitioners, being major and consenting adults, have an unqualified right to choose their partners and reside together without interference from any quarter. 

Police Protection Granted: 

• The Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioners shall be free to approach the concerned SHO or Beat Constable, who shall provide necessary assistance in accordance with law.  
• It was further clarified that if the couple changes residence to another jurisdiction, they must inform the concerned SHO within three days, and protection shall continue to be extended. 

What is the Concept of Live-In Relationship in India? 

Definition & Background: 

• A live-in relationship is cohabitation without formal marriage registration. 
• India lacks longstanding legal provisions for such partnerships, unlike Western countries. 
• Indian judiciary has adapted the legal framework to accommodate shifting societal norms. 

Legal Recognition: 

• No explicit statutory definition or regulation exists in Indian law. 
• S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) — Supreme Court ruled live-in relationships are part of the right to life under Article 21 and cannot be considered illegal. 
• D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) — SC introduced the concept of "relationship akin to marriage," with four conditions: cohabitation for a significant period, monogamy, both partners of legal marriageable age, and consensual conduct resembling marriage. 

Maintenance Rights: 

• Women in live-in relationships can claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 125 CrPC (144 of BNSS).  
• Entitlement depends on whether the relationship satisfies marriage-like criteria. 

Property Rights: 

• No automatic inheritance rights for live-in partners. 
• A partner may acquire rights to property accumulated during the relationship if they demonstrably contributed to its acquisition.  

Rights of Children: 

• Children born of live-in relationships are entitled to legitimacy and inheritance rights. 
• Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008) — children cannot be deemed illegitimate if parents cohabited under the same roof for a considerable period. 

Protection Against Domestic Violence: 

• The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 extends protection to women in live-in relationships 
• Entitled rights include: right to reside in the shared household, right to seek protection orders, and right to claim compensation for damages suffered.