DATELINE: Morality on Leave – When Law Redefines Loyalty
Issues of spousal rights, child welfare, and emotional accountability demand attention—not through criminalisation, but through stronger civil remedies, family counselling systems, and social support mechanisms.
Masarat Peerzada
The recent observation by the Allahabad High Court that a married man living in a consensual live-in relationship with another adult woman does not automatically constitute a criminal offence has sparked intense debate across the country. While the court emphasized the distinction between morality and legality, many people feel that such judicial remarks raise uncomfortable questions about the sanctity of marriage, social responsibility, and the long-term impact on family structures. A central theme of the judgment is the longstanding legal principle that criminal law punishes acts, not perceived immorality. The court clarified that unless an act falls within the scope of a defined offence—such as adultery (now decriminalised), coercion, trafficking, or enticement—the judiciary cannot invent criminality based on social disapproval
The court, while hearing a plea for protection from a couple facing threats from the woman’s family, clearly stated that if two adults are living together with mutual consent, and no specific offence under the law is committed, then courts cannot intervene merely on the basis of societal morality. According to the bench, the judiciary’s responsibility is to protect constitutional rights—particularly the right to life and personal liberty—rather than to enforce moral codes.
Legally speaking, the reasoning follows earlier developments in Indian law. The Supreme Court had decriminalized adultery in 2018 by striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the provision treated women as property of their husbands. The court then emphasized that while adultery may be a ground for divorce, it should not be treated as a criminal offence. In the same spirit, live-in relationships between consenting adults have also received a degree of legal recognition, mainly to ensure protection from harassment and to secure certain rights for partners and children born out of such relationships.
However, the gap between legality and morality is where the real storm begins.
For many citizens, marriage is not merely a legal contract but a sacred institution built on trust, commitment, and responsibility. In such a framework, the idea that a married individual can legally live with another partner without first dissolving the marriage appears contradictory and unsettling. Critics argue that while the law may choose to stay neutral, the social consequences of such neutrality can be significant.
Marriage in Indian society carries deep emotional, cultural, and often religious meaning. It is seen as a bond not just between two individuals but between families. When legal interpretations appear to normalize relationships outside this commitment without requiring a formal separation or divorce, people fear it may weaken the moral accountability traditionally associated with marriage.
Ultimately, the judgment does not redefine marriage; it reaffirms a constitutional principle: the state cannot criminalise private adult choices simply because they are unpopular. The challenge ahead lies in strengthening families through social institutions and civil law—not through coercive criminal prosecution.
Some critics go further, suggesting that these interpretations unintentionally create a legal shield for behaviour that could emotionally harm spouses and destabilize families. They argue that if a married person wishes to form a new relationship, the ethical path would be to legally end the existing marriage first. In their view, bypassing this step may not violate criminal law, but it does challenge the moral expectations that hold families together.
Supporters of the court’s stance, on the other hand, stress that the judiciary cannot criminalize personal choices simply because society disapproves of them. They argue that the purpose of law is not to enforce morality but to prevent harm and protect individual freedoms. From this perspective, issues like loyalty, betrayal, or emotional suffering fall within the domain of civil law, divorce proceedings, or personal ethics rather than criminal punishment.
Why the Discomfort Persists
That said, public unease is neither irrational nor entirely misplaced. In Indian society, marriage is far more than a private contract. It is a social institution bound up with notions of commitment, responsibility, and family stability. When courts assert that the law cannot intervene in relationships many view as disruptive or unfair—particularly to spouses and children—it naturally raises anxiety.
Critics argue that judicial remarks like these risk normalising arrangements that undermine trust and emotional security within families. While such harm may not be criminally punishable, it is nonetheless real. The concern, therefore, is not merely legal but moral and social: if the law retreats entirely from regulating intimate conduct, what happens to accountability?
This ongoing debate reveals a deeper tension within modern society: the balance between individual liberty and social values. As India continues to evolve legally and socially, courts often find themselves navigating this delicate boundary. A key misunderstanding fuelling outrage is the belief that the court has endorsed such relationships. In reality, the High Court carefully limited its scope. It did not legitimise or morally justify the arrangement; rather, it insisted that state power cannot be used to harass, arrest, or endanger consenting adults when no crime is made out. The Allahabad High Court’s observation underscores a legal reality: the law cannot be a proxy for moral policing. At the same time, society’s anxiety about marriage and family stability is genuine. Courts are increasingly called upon to walk a tightrope—defending individual liberty without dismantling social responsibility.
The ruling exposes a deeper gap: while criminal law has stepped back, civil and social frameworks remain inadequate to address the resulting emotional and familial complexities. Issues of spousal rights, child welfare, and emotional accountability demand attention—not through criminalisation, but through stronger civil remedies, family counselling systems, and social support mechanisms.If marriage as an institution feels threatened, the solution lies not in prosecuting relationships, but in strengthening trust, protection, and justice within marriage itself.
Ultimately, the question remains: should the law simply protect freedom, or should it also safeguard the moral foundations of institutions like marriage? While the judiciary may have drawn a clear line between law and morality, society is still wrestling with where that line should truly stand.
(STRAIGHT TALK COMMUNICATIONS EXCLUSIVE)
