Delhi High Court: Consenting Adults Have Right to Live Together Parents Cannot Interfere

EduLaw EditorialLandmark Judgements2026-08-24

The 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 fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was under jeopardy on account of these threats. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure), seeking a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to provide immediate and adequate protection against harassment, threats, and harm of any nature by the woman's father. 3. ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT The principal issue before the Delhi High Court was whether two consenting adults who have voluntarily entered into a live-in relationship are entitled to protection of their life and liberty against threats emanating from their own family members. Subsidiary to this was the question of whether a live-in relationship, though not constituting a legal marriage, carries sufficient sanctity in law to warrant judicial protection from external interference. The Court was also called upon to consider the scope and extent of police protection that could be directed in favour of such a couple, including the mechanism for continued protection if the couple relocated to a different jurisdiction. 4. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONERS Counsel for the petitioners — Mr. Dilip Kumar Rana, Mr. Lokesh Sharma, Ms. Gauranshi Rawal, and Mr. Sumit Panwar — advanced a straightforward but constitutionally grounded argument. They submitted that both petitioners were consenting adults who had been in a relationship since 2024 and had now formalized their intention to live together through a written agreement. Counsel emphasized that the right to choose one's partner and to cohabit with them is an integral component of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners' case was further supported by reference to the constitutional guarantee of freedom under Article 19 , which protects the right of individuals to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. It was argued that the threats from the woman's father amounted to an unlawful restraint on these fundamental freedoms. Counsel relied upon the well-established line of Supreme Court jurisprudence, particularly the decisions in Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2018) and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368 , to demonstrate that adults possess an unfettered right to live together as they choose, irrespective of whether they have entered into a formal marriage. 5. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS Justice Saurabh Banerjee's reasoning in this case is notable for its clarity and constitutional conviction. The Court began by establishing the foundational fact that both petitioners were adults — consenting individuals "who have all rights to choose and reside with their respective partner(s) as per their individual choice/ desire with no interference from anyone." This declaration set the tone for the entire judgment, framing the dispute not as a family matter but as a question of fundamental rights. The Court then proceeded to draw a significant analogy by observing that "the Live-In Relationship which the petitioners are in, is in a way akin to marriage, though not legally." This observation is doctrinally important because it extends to live-in relationships the same presumption of legitimacy and respect that the legal system accords to marriages. The Court emphasized that marriage in India is recognized between two consenting individuals irrespective of caste, creed, colour, religion, or faith, and that the same principle of consent-based legitimacy applies to live-in relationships. In the most powerful passage of the order, the Court declared: "no one, be it their parents, including respondent no.4, i.e. father of petitioner nos.2/ relatives/ friends, have any right and/ or authority to cause any hinderance and/ or interference of any kind to them, much less threaten their life and/ or liberty." This categorical pronouncement leaves no room for ambiguity — familial disapproval, howsoever intense, cannot translate into a legal right to interfere with the autonomous decisions of consenting adults. The Court further reasoned that the curtailment of an individual's right to choose their partner by "societal morals and prejudices" amounts to a deprivation of one's "very individualistic identity." This observation links the right to choose a partner not merely to the negative liberty of being free from interference, but to the positive dimension of personal identity and self-determination. 6. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOKED The judgment invokes three constitutional provisions as the bedrock of its reasoning. Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees certain freedoms to all citizens, was cited for the right to freedom — including the freedom to reside and settle anywhere in India and the freedom of association. Article 21 , which provides that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, served as the primary constitutional anchor, with the Court emphasizing that the right to choose one's partner is an integral facet of personal liberty. Article 226 provided the jurisdictional basis for the petition, empowering the High Court to issue writs including writs of mandamus for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Additionally, the Court invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , which is the successor provision to corresponding sections of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure and provides the procedural mechanism for seeking police protection. The reference to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was made to demonstrate legislative recognition of live-in relationships within the Indian legal framework, establishing that such relationships are not merely tolerated but affirmatively acknowledged by the law. 7. LANDMARK CASE LAWS RELIED UPON The judgment draws its doctrinal strength from two landmark Supreme Court decisions that have shaped the constitutional jurisprudence on personal autonomy and the right to choose one's partner. Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2018): INSC 383 — This decision of the Supreme Court established the principle that adults have an "unfettered right" to reside with each other as they desire, even in the absence of a formal marriage. The Court in Nandakumar held that the right to cohabit is not contingent upon entering into wedlock, thereby affirming the legitimacy of live-in relationships as a matter of constitutional right. Justice Banerjee relied upon this precedent to hold that the petitioners' live-in relationship "has due sanctity in the eyes of law" and deserves protection. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) 16 SCC 368 — Popularly known as the Hadiya case, this landmark judgment of the Supreme Court held that the right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan categorically observed that the choice of a life partner lies within the exclusive domain of individual liberty and cannot be subjected to external control by parents, the State, or society. The Delhi High Court invoked this precedent to hold that the curtailment of personal choice by societal morals and prejudices constitutes a deprivation of one's individualistic identity. Additionally, the broader jurisprudence in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475 — though not expressly cited in this order — provides important contextual support. In Lata Singh, the Supreme Court deprecated honour-based interference by families and directed authorities to take strict action against those who threaten or harass couples entering into inter-caste or inter-faith marriages. That decision established the foundational principle that once adults exercise their choice, no family member has the right to resort to violence or threats. 8. DIRECTIONS ISSUED AND CONCLUSION The Court allowed the writ petition and issued specific, practical directions to ensure the safety of the petitioners. First, the Court directed that the petitioners shall be free to contact either the Station House Officer of Police Station Daryaganj or the Beat Constable (identified by name and phone number in the order) whenever the need arises. The police were directed to provide all necessary assistance in accordance with law. Second, the Court clarified that if the petitioners choose to reside within the jurisdiction of a different police station, they must inform the concerned SHO within three days of shifting, following which that police station shall extend identical protection. This direction ensures continuity of protection regardless of the couple's location — a practical recognition of the fact that threatened couples often relocate to escape violence. The judgment in Kartik & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi represents a firm and principled affirmation of the constitutional rights of consenting adults. It sends an unmistakable message that parental disapproval — however deeply held — cannot be weaponized into threats of violence without judicial consequence. The decision reinforces that Indian constitutional law recognizes the autonomy, dignity, and personal liberty of every adult to make decisions about their relationships, and that the State's machinery will be deployed to protect those who face unlawful interference with that right. As live-in relationships become increasingly common in contemporary India, this judgment provides a clear and accessible precedent for courts, law enforcement agencies, and citizens alike. It stands as a reminder that in a constitutional democracy, the right to love and live with the person of one's choice is not a privilege granted by family — it is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Keywords: Delhi High Court, live-in relationship, consenting adults, right to choose partner, Article 21, personal liberty, parental interference, police protection, Kartik v. State of NCT of Delhi, Nandakumar v. State of Kerala, Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, fundamental rights, autonomy, dignity, live-in relationship agreement