Justice Banerjee said that the couple, being consenting adults, had "all rights to choose and reside" with a partner of their choice without interference from anyone. The order was passed on August 13. In the order, the observed that marriages are recognised irrespective of the caste, creed, colour, religion or faith of the consenting adults, and curtailing their fundamental rights, which are guaranteed under the Constitution, by "societal morals and prejudices" was a deprivation of one's very individualistic identity. "Since the petitioners have willingly, consensually and with utmost responsibility chosen to enter into a live-in relationship with each other, nobody, be it their parents/ relatives/ friends, have a right and/ or authority to cause any hinderance and/ or interfere with their choice thereof, much less threaten their life and/ or liberty," the court said. "The petitioners herein are though in a live-in relationship and are not legally married to each other; however, being consenting adults, the same is akin to marriage," it stated. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to live-in relations. The top court held that the provision relating to cruelty by a husband or his relatives can also extend to partners in live-in relationships if they have the intention to marry. The apex court observed that live-in relationships have become an accepted social reality, particularly in urban India. It further stressed that the legal framework must evolve to safeguard individuals who opt for such relationships. The judgment came while the Supreme Court was examining whether a man in a live-in relationship could face prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitoner couple, both in their 30s, told the court that they had been living together for some time and planned to get married. However, the woman’s father and brother allegedly opposed their relationship and repeatedly threatened them with violence. The petitioners stated that they made a complaint to the local Station House Officer (SHO) but no action was taken. The court stated that the Supreme Court has held that despite the absence of a wedlock, adults have the unfettered right to reside with each other as they desire. This now has due sanctity in the eyes of law, and has even been recognised by the legislature under provisions such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it added. Sumit Sharma is a Deputy News Editor at Times Now with around a decade of experience across print, electronic, and digital media. Previously, he worke... View More