This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Overview
A recurring question before the High Courts is whether two adults in a live-in relationship can claim police protection when one of them is still legally married to another person and has not obtained a divorce. The Allahabad High Court addressed this in Anu and another v. State of U.P. and 4 others (Justice Vivek Kumar Singh, order dated 20 March 2026), declining protection on the ground that the relationship, during a subsisting marriage, could not found an enforceable legal right and would, in substance, shield conduct that the law treats as bigamy under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
This explainer sets out the statutory framework, the reasoning, and the fact that the High Court is not of one mind on the point.
The Statutory Bar — Section 82 BNS (Bigamy)
Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — the successor to Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — criminalises marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse:
Section 82(1) BNS: “Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 82(2) BNS: Where the fact of the former marriage is concealed from the second spouse, the term may extend to ten years, plus fine.
The offence under Section 82(1) is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Magistrate of the first class. The section carries an exception where the earlier marriage has been declared void by a competent court, or where the spouse has been continuously absent for seven years and the fact is disclosed before the second marriage.
A live-in relationship is not itself a “marriage,” so it does not automatically attract Section 82. The relevance of the provision in protection cases is different: the courts ask whether granting protection would, in effect, lend judicial sanction to a relationship that the existing marriage makes legally impermissible.
What the Court Held in Anu v. State of UP
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the authorities not to interfere with their relationship and to provide protection. The woman petitioner was already married and had not obtained a divorce. Justice Vivek Kumar Singh declined relief, reasoning along three lines:
1. A spouse has a competing, legally protected right. The Court held that “a spouse has a statutory right to enjoy the company of his or her counterpart,” and that “the freedom of one person cannot encroach or outweigh the legal right of another person.” One partner’s claim to personal liberty under Article 21 cannot defeat the other spouse’s subsisting marital rights.
2. No enforceable right, no mandamus. A writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution issues only where the petitioner demonstrates a subsisting, legally enforceable right. Because the relationship ran contrary to the existing marriage, the Court found no such right to enforce.
3. Protection cannot shield an offence. The Court reasoned that granting protection in these circumstances “could effectively amount to protecting conduct that may attract penal consequences” — i.e., conduct falling within the bigamy provision in Section 82(1) BNS.
A related order of the same Judge in Sonam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine All 7539 (7 November 2025), took the same view in the IPC framework, observing that granting protection “would amount to grant protection against commission of offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the IPC,” and noting the absence of indicators (such as shared finances or sustained cohabitation) showing a relationship “in the nature of marriage.”
A Divided View Within the High Court
This is an area where coordinate benches of the Allahabad High Court have not spoken with one voice. Reports indicate that a Division Bench (Justices J.J. Munir and Tarun Saxena), in an order around 25 March 2026, took a contrary view and extended protection in a comparable situation, emphasising the constitutional duty to protect life and liberty regardless of the moral or marital status of the parties. The fault line runs between that protective duty — which the Supreme Court has invoked to shield live-in couples even where the relationship is socially disapproved — and the competing marital rights of an existing spouse read with the bigamy bar in Section 82 BNS. The law on protection for live-in couples during a subsisting marriage is therefore unsettled at the High Court level, with the outcome turning heavily on the bench and the facts.
Key Takeaways (Educational)
- A live-in relationship is not a marriage, but where one partner is already married and not divorced, a second marriage would be void and could attract Section 82 BNS (bigamy).
- Some benches decline protection in such cases for want of an enforceable legal right; others grant it on the strength of the constitutional duty to protect life and liberty.
- The legal position is fact-sensitive and currently divided; this article does not predict the outcome of any particular case.
Useful Resources
- LawBeat — report on Anu v. State of UP
- SCC Online Blog — Sonam v. State of UP (protection denied without dissolution of marriage)
- Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — bare text
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — full Act (India Code)
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.