Allahabad High Court holds that an interfaith same-sex couple has an Article 21 right to live together peacefully and directs police protection.
The Court held that adult couples who voluntarily choose to live together cannot be threatened or obstructed by family members or others merely because their relationship lacks marital recognition.
The Allahabad High Court has held that an interfaith same-sex couple has a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution to live together peacefully in a live-in relationship. The Court observed that family members, relatives or any other section of society cannot legally obstruct the couple’s voluntary decision to cohabit.
Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by two adult women who sought protection from alleged threats, harassment and interference with their relationship. The order was passed on September 14, 2026.
Couple Sought Protection From Alleged Threats
The petitioners told the High Court that they were both adults, unmarried, from different faiths and in a same-sex live-in relationship. They alleged that family members and other private respondents were interfering with their peaceful life and had threatened and harassed them because of their decision to live together.
The Court had directed the petitioners to appear personally. During the proceedings, both women appeared before Justice Chowdhary and stated that they had voluntarily chosen to live together. They also expressed their desire to continue living together without interference.
The Court recorded that the petitioners were adults, educated and capable of understanding what was in their own interest. It further found that their decision was voluntary and had not been made under pressure, fear or undue influence.
Article 21 Protects Choice And Peaceful Coexistence
The High Court considered the constitutional protection available to adults exercising their personal autonomy and choice.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence concerning the rights of queer and LGBTQ+ persons, including the decisions in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India.
While the Supreme Court has distinguished the right to form relationships from a claim to legal recognition of such relationships as marriage, the Allahabad High Court observed that the right of consenting adults to choose their living arrangement falls within the protection of Article 21.
The Court made it clear that the absence of marital recognition does not give third parties or administrative authorities a licence to interfere with the dignity, physical liberty or security of adult citizens.
Family Members Cannot Obstruct Voluntary Relationship
The High Court observed that when two adult citizens, exercising their personal autonomy, decide to live together, their peaceful cohabitation is protected under Article 21.
It further held that family members, relatives or any section of society have no legal right to obstruct such peaceful cohabitation, intimidate or threaten the couple, or interfere with their physical liberty.
The Court’s observation is particularly significant because the petition involved both an interfaith relationship and a same-sex relationship, with the petitioners alleging interference from their families.
Police Directed To Provide Protection
Allowing the petition, the High Court directed that the petitioners should be permitted to live together peacefully and that their family members or any other person should not interfere with their decision.
The Court further directed that if the couple faced any obstruction, they could approach the concerned Police Commissioner, Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of the order.
The police authorities were directed to verify that the petitioners were adults and were voluntarily living together. Upon such verification, immediate protection was to be provided to them.
The private respondents were also given liberty to seek recall of the order if they were able to establish that the documents relied upon by the petitioners were forged or fabricated.
Right To Live Together Distinguished From Right To Marry
The ruling does not confer marital status upon the petitioners. Rather, it concerns their right as consenting adults to live together without threats or unlawful interference.
This distinction is consistent with the Supreme Court’s position that questions concerning legal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples fall within the legislative domain, while constitutional protections relating to privacy, dignity, choice and personal autonomy continue to apply to LGBTQ+ persons.
The decision therefore places the immediate focus on Article 21, personal autonomy and protection of life and liberty, rather than on recognition of the relationship as a marriage.
For more updates on constitutional and human-rights developments, readers can follow The Legal Observer’s national legal news coverage.
The case is Km Farida Ansari And Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others, Writ-C No. 36224 of 2026.
Further legal developments and video updates are available through The Legal Observer’s YouTube channel.
