Delhi High Court: Consenting Adults Have Right to Live Together Parents Cannot Interfere
EduLaw EditorialLandmark JudgementsThe Delhi High Court has unequivocally reaffirmed that two consenting adults who choose to live together in a relationship cannot be threatened or harassed by their own family members. In a powerful articulation of constitutional liberty, Justice Saurabh Banerjee declared that societal morals and prejudices cannot curtail the fundamental rights of individuals to choose their partners. Title: Delhi High Court Affirms: Consenting Adults Have an Unfettered Right to Live Together — No Parent, Relative, or Friend Can Interfere Case Name: Kartik & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 665/2026 Court: Delhi High Court Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee Judgment Date: 24 February 2026 Citation: 2026:DHC (Kartik & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.) ABSTRACT The Delhi High Court, through a single-judge bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee, allowed a writ petition filed by a couple in a live-in relationship who faced threats of violence from the woman's father. The Court held that a live-in relationship between consenting adults is "akin to marriage" and that no person — whether a parent, relative, or friend — has any right or authority to cause hindrance or interference to such a relationship, much less threaten their life or liberty. The judgment draws upon the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Article 19 (right to freedom) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India and relies heavily on the Supreme Court's authoritative pronouncements in Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2018) and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368 . The Court directed the police authorities to provide adequate protection to the petitioners and made it clear that such protection would extend to any jurisdiction where the couple chose to reside. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Contextual Background Facts of the Case Issues Before the Court Arguments Advanced by the Petitioners Court's Reasoning and Analysis Constitutional Provisions Invoked Landmark Case Laws Relied Upon Directions Issued and Conclusion 1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND India's constitutional democracy is built upon the twin pillars of individual autonomy and personal liberty. While the institution of family continues to hold immense cultural significance in Indian society, the legal framework has progressively evolved to protect the rights of adults to make independent decisions about their personal lives, including the choice of a life partner. The tension between familial expectations and individual freedom has been a recurring theme before Indian courts, particularly in cases where inter-caste, inter-faith, or live-in relationships are met with resistance or threats from family members. The present case, decided by the Delhi High Court on 24 February 2026, arises out of precisely such circumstances. A couple who had been in a consensual relationship since 2024 and had formally entered into a Live-in Relationship Agreement on 17 February 2026 approached the Court seeking protection from the woman's father, who had been threatening them with violence. The judgment rendered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee is significant not merely for the relief it grants, but for the constitutional principles it articulates regarding the autonomy of consenting adults in matters of personal relationships. The broader legal landscape surrounding live-in relationships in India has undergone significant transformation over the past two decades. From being viewed with suspicion or moral disapproval, such relationships have gradually gained legal recognition through a series of judicial pronouncements and legislative acknowledgments, most notably under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 . The present judgment further consolidates this evolving legal framework by declaring, in unambiguous terms, that a live-in relationship between two consenting adults carries legal sanctity and deserves protection from interference by third parties, including parents. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE The petitioners in this case were two individuals — Kartik and his partner — who had been in a relationship with each other since 2024. Both petitioners were adults, born in the years 2006 and 2007 respectively, making them of legal age at the time of filing the petition. Having decided to live together, the couple executed a formal Live-in Relationship Agreement on 17 February 2026, recording their mutual desire, intent, and decision to cohabit. The difficulty arose from the opposition of Respondent No. 4, who was the father of Petitioner No. 2 (the woman). According to the petition, the woman's father had been "constantly threatening the petitioners with violence" upon learning of their relationship and their decision to live together. The threats were severe enough to create a genuine apprehension of grave harm being caused to both petitioners. The couple submitted that their fundame