No Protection for Live-In Relationship if Male is Below 21 Years

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News? 

The Allahabad High Court, in Shajiya Parveen and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2026), held that a live-in relationship cannot be protected by the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), where the male partner is below the statutorily prescribed marriageable age of 21 years. 

• Justice Garima Prashad clarified that while the Court cannot extend protection to such a relationship, both parties remain entitled to protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the COI. The Court further held that parents, guardians, and statutory authorities cannot be restrained from taking lawful steps under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and other applicable laws.

What was the Background of Shajiya Parveen and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2026) Case? 

• The petitioners were a Muslim woman aged approximately 20 years and a Scheduled Caste Hindu male aged approximately 19 years, who were in a live-in relationship. The father of the woman was allegedly threatening the couple, while the family of the male had no objection to the relationship. 
• The petitioners approached the High Court seeking protection of their life and liberty.  
• The central question before the Court was whether protection could be granted to a live-in couple when the male partner is below 21 years of age and is statutorily a 'child' for the purposes of marriage law.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Uniform Statutory Framework on Marriageable Age: The Court observed that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 uniformly prescribe the minimum age of marriage as 21 years for males and 18 years for females. Under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, any male below 21 years and any female below 18 years is referred to as a 'child'. A conjoint reading of these enactments establishes a uniform legislative policy that a male who has not completed 21 years of age lacks the requisite legal capacity to enter into a marital relationship, and any such union falls within the zone of statutory restriction. 
• On the Purpose of Child Marriage Legislation: The Court held that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is a complete code against child marriages and is not an obsolete formality. It is a modern welfare enactment responding to conditions that Parliament considered serious enough to warrant prevention, punishment, and institutional oversight, recognising that premature unions often involve lack of maturity, financial and emotional unreadiness, interruption of education, and serious long-term social consequences. 
• On Live-In Relationships as Substitutes for Marriage: The Court noted that the petitioners had themselves stated they were living together only because marriage was not yet permissible under law, thereby using the live-in relationship as an alternative to marriage. Observing that such relationships are in the nature of marriage, the Court held that a court order protecting the continuance of such an arrangement would not remain a bare protection order — it would begin to operate as an indirect sanction for a presently impermissible marriage-like arrangement. 
• On Applicability of Muslim Personal Law: The Court held that since the parties did not assert marriage, Muslim Personal Law — which in some cases permits marriage below the prescribed statutory ages — would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 
• On Parental and Institutional Intervention: The Court held that while parents and family members cannot resort to threats, violence, coercion, or illegal confinement, they cannot be restrained by judicial order from taking lawful steps such as approaching the police, informing the Child Marriage Prohibition Officer, or initiating proceedings before the competent Magistrate under the statute.

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.