Allahabad HC Protects Two Women In Same-Sex Live-In Relationship, Directs Police To Ensure Security

The Allahabad High Court has held that two adult women in a consensual same-sex live-in relationship are entitled to protection under Article 21 of the Constitution and directed that no family member or other person be allowed to interfere with their peaceful life.

The bench of Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary passed the order on September 14 on a petition filed by two women, who told the court that they were adults, unmarried and had voluntarily chosen to live together.

The petitioners had sought a writ directing the authorities not to interfere with their live-in relationship and to provide them security. They alleged that private respondents, including family members, were threatening and harassing them, creating a serious threat to their lives.

Same-Sex Live-In Relationship Protected Under Article 21

Both women appeared personally before the high court pursuant to an earlier order. During their interaction with the court, they stated that they were adults and had decided, without any pressure, fear or undue influence, to live together based on their own free will and sexual orientation.

Court said that after personally interviewing them, it found that both were adults, capable of understanding what was in their best interest and that their decision was based on free consent.

They also submitted individual statements saying that they were in a same-sex relationship and wanted to continue living together. They alleged that two private respondents were interfering with their peaceful life.

The petitioners' counsel relied on the Supreme Court's 2018 judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, arguing that sexual orientation is an aspect of an individual's freedom, dignity, privacy and personal autonomy. The counsel also submitted that constitutional morality, rather than social morality, must guide the protection of fundamental rights.

Allahabad HC Relies On Navtej, Supriyo Judgments

The high court also considered the Constitution Bench judgment in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India. It noted the Supreme Court's finding that queer and LGBTQ+ couples have a right to union or relationship under Article 21, flowing from the rights to privacy, choice and autonomy.

At the same time, the Supreme Court had clarified that such a right does not amount to an entitlement to legal recognition of the relationship as marriage or another legal status. The creation of such a legal framework falls within the legislative domain.

The high court held that this distinction did not prevent adult same-sex couples from living together. It said that when two adults voluntarily choose to live together, their decision to enter into a live-in relationship is protected by Article 21.

Court held that when two adult citizens choose to live together based on personal autonomy and choice, “living in a live-in relationship” is their fundamental right. It added that family members, relatives or any section of society have no legal right to disturb their peaceful cohabitation, threaten them or violate their physical liberty.

Court further observed that the absence of marital recognition does not give any third party or administrative authority the liberty to interfere with the dignity and physical security of adult citizens.

Police Directed To Provide Immediate Protection

Court found that both petitioners were adults, educated and capable of understanding the consequences of their decision, and had chosen to live together after due consideration and without coercion.

It consequently allowed the petition and directed that they be permitted to live together peacefully. Their family members or any other person would not be permitted to interfere with their live-in relationship.

Court also laid down the mechanism for protection. If their peaceful life was disturbed, the women could approach the concerned police commissioner, SSP or SP with a certified copy of the order. The police were directed to provide immediate protection after verifying that the petitioners were adults and were living together voluntarily.

The private respondents, however, were given liberty to seek recall of the order if they could establish that the documents produced by the petitioners were forged or fabricated.

Case Title: Km Farida Ansari and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Order Date: September 14, 2026

Bench: Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary