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

In the case of Shajiya Parveen and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2026), the Court held that protection cannot be granted to a live-in relatio

No Protection for Live-In Relationship if Male is Below 21 Years: Allahabad High Court Judgment Explained

The Allahabad High Court recently delivered an important judgment regarding live-in relationships and the legal age of marriage in India. In the case of Shajiya Parveen and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2026), the Court held that protection cannot be granted to a live-in relationship where the male partner is below the legally prescribed marriageable age of 21 years.

The judgment has generated widespread discussion because it deals with several important constitutional and social issues including personal liberty, live-in relationships, child marriage laws, and the powers of constitutional courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Garima Prashad clarified that while the Court cannot protect a relationship that indirectly resembles a legally impermissible marriage, both individuals still retain protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

This decision is significant because it attempts to balance individual freedom with statutory restrictions created under Indian marriage laws and child protection legislation.

Particular	Details
Case Name	Shajiya Parveen and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2026)
Court	Allahabad High Court
Judge	Justice Garima Prashad
Citation	2026 Latest Case Law – Allahabad High Court
Key Legal Issue	Whether protection can be granted to a live-in relationship where the male partner is below 21 years of age.
Constitutional Provision	Article 21 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Download Link	Download / Read Full Case

---

Background of the Case

The case involved a Muslim woman aged approximately 20 years and a Scheduled Caste Hindu male aged approximately 19 years who were living together in a live-in relationship.

According to the petitioners:

• The woman’s father was allegedly threatening the couple

• The male partner’s family had no objection

• They feared interference from family members and authorities

The couple approached the Allahabad High Court seeking protection of their life and liberty under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The key legal issue before the Court was whether constitutional protection could be granted to a live-in relationship when the male partner had not attained the legally prescribed marriageable age of 21 years.

This question forced the Court to examine the interaction between:

• Personal liberty under Article 21

• Live-in relationship jurisprudence

• Marriage laws

• Child marriage legislation

• Public policy considerations

---

Court’s Main Observation

The Allahabad High Court clearly held that it cannot grant protection to a live-in relationship that effectively operates as a substitute for a marriage prohibited under existing law.

Justice Garima Prashad observed:

“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.”

The Court reasoned that granting protection in such circumstances would indirectly validate a relationship that resembles marriage even though the male partner lacked the legal capacity to marry.

---

Uniform Statutory Framework on Marriageable Age

One of the most important aspects of the judgment was the Court’s interpretation of the statutory framework governing marriageable age in India.

The Court referred to multiple laws including:

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

• Special Marriage Act, 1954

• Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006

The Court noted that these laws uniformly prescribe:

• 21 years as the minimum age for males

• 18 years as the minimum age for females

Under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, a male below 21 years is legally treated as a “child” for the purposes of marriage law.

The Court emphasized that this legislative framework reflects a consistent public policy adopted by Parliament regarding legal maturity and marital capacity.

---

Purpose of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006

The judgment also discussed the objectives behind the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.

According to the Court, the legislation is not merely symbolic or outdated. Instead, it is a modern welfare law enacted to address serious social concerns associated with premature unions.

The Court observed that child marriage laws aim to prevent:

• Emotional immaturity

• Financial instability

• Educational disruption

• Social vulnerability

• Long-term negative consequences

The judgment highlighted that Parliament intentionally created safeguards to prevent early marital relationships involving individuals who may not possess sufficient maturity.

This reasoning became central to the Court’s refusal to grant legal protection to the live-in relationship in the present case.

---

Live-In Relationships as Substitute for Marriage

The Court made a very important observation regarding the nature of the relationship involved in the case.

The petitioners themselves admitted that they were living together because marriage was not legally permissible at the moment.

The Court interpreted this as evidence that the live-in relationship was effectively functioning as an alternative to marriage.

According to the judgment:

• The relationship resembled marriage in substance

• Judicial protection would indirectly legitimize it

• Such protection would undermine statutory restrictions

The Court therefore refused to pass orders that could be interpreted as approval of a marriage-like arrangement prohibited under law.

---

Article 21 and Protection of Life and Liberty

Although the Court declined to protect the live-in relationship itself, it clarified that both individuals still enjoy constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Article 21 guarantees protection of life and personal liberty to every person.

The Court stated that:

• Parents cannot use violence

• Illegal confinement is prohibited

• Threats and coercion are unlawful

• Individuals still possess basic constitutional rights

Thus, the judgment drew a distinction between:

1. Protecting individual safety and liberty

2. Granting judicial legitimacy to a prohibited marriage-like relationship

This distinction became the foundation of the Court’s reasoning.

---

Applicability of Muslim Personal Law

The petitioners included a Muslim woman and a Hindu male.

The Court considered whether Muslim Personal Law could apply in this situation because some interpretations of personal law historically permitted marriage below statutory age limits.

However, the Court held that Muslim Personal Law was not applicable here because:

• The parties were not claiming to be married

• The dispute concerned a live-in relationship

• The case involved statutory child marriage restrictions

Therefore, statutory law prevailed over personal law arguments in this context.

---

Parental and Institutional Intervention

Another major aspect of the judgment involved the role of parents and authorities.

The Court clarified that parents and guardians cannot engage in:

• Threats

• Violence

• Illegal detention

• Coercion

However, the Court also stated that parents and authorities cannot be restrained from taking lawful action under existing legislation.

This includes:

• Approaching police authorities

• Informing Child Marriage Prohibition Officers

• Seeking legal remedies under applicable statutes

The Court emphasized that lawful institutional intervention remains permissible where statutory violations may exist.

---

What is a Live-In Relationship?

A live-in relationship refers to cohabitation between two adults without formal marriage registration.

In India, live-in relationships are not explicitly defined under any comprehensive statute. However, Indian courts have gradually recognized such relationships through judicial interpretation.

Live-in relationships have become more visible in urban India due to changing social attitudes, individual autonomy, and evolving concepts of relationships.

---

Legal Status of Live-In Relationships in India

Indian courts have recognized live-in relationships in several landmark judgments.

One important case was:

S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal

In this case, the Supreme Court held that live-in relationships fall within the scope of personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot automatically be treated as illegal.

Another major case was:

D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal

The Supreme Court introduced the concept of a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”

The Court identified several conditions for recognizing such relationships:

• Long-term cohabitation

• Legal marriageable age

• Voluntary relationship

• Social presentation resembling marriage

This case became particularly relevant because legal marriageable age was considered an essential requirement.

---

Maintenance Rights in Live-In Relationships

Indian law provides certain protections to women in live-in relationships.

Under:

• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

• Section 125 CrPC (now under BNSS provisions)

women may claim maintenance if the relationship resembles marriage.

Courts generally examine:

• Duration of cohabitation

• Nature of the relationship

• Financial dependency

• Public representation

before granting such protections.

---

Rights of Children Born from Live-In Relationships

Indian courts have repeatedly protected the rights of children born from live-in relationships.

In:

Tulsa v. Durghatiya

the Supreme Court held that children cannot be treated as illegitimate if parents cohabited for a significant period.

Such children may enjoy:

• Legitimacy rights

• Inheritance protections

• Legal recognition

This reflects the judiciary’s attempt to protect innocent children from social stigma.

---

Protection Against Domestic Violence

Women in live-in relationships may seek protection under the Domestic Violence Act.

Available remedies include:

• Protection orders

• Residence rights

• Compensation

• Maintenance support

This legal protection recognizes that women in non-marital relationships may still face abuse and require legal safeguards.

---

Constitutional Debate Raised by the Judgment

The Allahabad High Court judgment raises several important constitutional and social questions.

Some legal experts support the decision because:

• It respects statutory marriage laws

• It protects child marriage legislation

• It prevents indirect legal circumvention

Others argue that:

• Adult autonomy should receive broader protection

• Live-in relationships should not be equated with marriage

• Courts should prioritize personal liberty

The debate reflects the continuing tension between:

• Social morality

• Legislative policy

• Individual freedom

• Constitutional rights

---

Social Impact of the Judgment

The judgment may have important social consequences.

It could influence:

• Future live-in relationship petitions

• Child marriage jurisprudence

• Constitutional interpretation

• Family law litigation

The decision may also encourage deeper debate regarding:

• Uniform marriage laws

• Age-based restrictions

• Personal liberty

• Judicial activism

---

Judicial Balance Between Liberty and Law

One notable aspect of the judgment is its attempt to strike a balance.

The Court did not criminalize the relationship itself. Instead, it refused to provide constitutional protection that could indirectly validate a prohibited marital arrangement.

At the same time, the Court reaffirmed that individuals cannot be subjected to unlawful violence or coercion.

This balancing approach demonstrates how constitutional courts often navigate complex conflicts between:

• Personal rights

• Legislative intent

• Social policy

• Public welfare

---

Conclusion

The Allahabad High Court judgment in Shajiya Parveen and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others (2026) represents an important development in Indian constitutional and family law jurisprudence.

The Court held that while individuals continue to enjoy protection of life and liberty under Article 21, constitutional courts cannot grant protection to a live-in relationship that effectively functions as a substitute for a marriage prohibited under statutory law because the male partner is below 21 years of age.

The judgment highlights the growing legal complexity surrounding live-in relationships, personal liberty, child marriage laws, and judicial intervention in private relationships.

As Indian society continues evolving, courts will likely continue facing difficult questions regarding the balance between individual autonomy and statutory restrictions. This case has now become an important reference point in the ongoing legal debate surrounding live-in relationships and marriage laws in India.