Allahabad HC's view on married man's live-in a U-turn from earlier stance: 'Not without divorce' The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a married man's consensual live-in relationship is not an offence, contradicting one of its earlier observations. This ruling marks a U-turn from the court's previous stance, which had deemed such relationships as an offence without the need for divorce. The updated decision was made on March 28, 2026, and was reported by Nayanika Sengupta for Hindustan Times. The court's latest stance reflects a shift in legal interpretation regarding personal rights and marital obligations, emphasizing the importance of individual autonomy in matters of personal relationships. This development has sparked discussions about the evolving legal landscape in India, particularly concerning the balance between traditional norms and contemporary societal values. The ruling underscores the court's recognition of the complexities involved in defining legal boundaries for consensual relationships outside the framework of marriage. As legal precedents continue to evolve, this decision may influence future cases and contribute to broader conversations about gender equality and personal freedoms.#hindustan_times #allahabad_hc #nayanika_sengupta #consensual_live_in_relationship #marital_obligations
Absolute Disdain: Allahabad HC Slams UP Govt Over Senior Citizens Protection Plan The Allahabad High Court recently issued a sharp rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh government for its failure to comply with a court order regarding the implementation of a protection plan for senior citizens. The bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan, criticized the Principal Secretary (Home) of the state for not filing an affidavit in response to the court’s directive. The order had sought clarification on whether the government had prepared a comprehensive action plan to safeguard the lives and property of vulnerable senior citizens under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court described the official’s inaction as reflecting “absolute disdain” for judicial authority, warning that the bureaucracy could face coercive measures, including contempt proceedings, if it failed to comply with the court’s directions. The bench emphasized that officials had only three options: comply with the order, file a one-page application with an affidavit explaining any delays, or face legal consequences. The case originated from a plea filed by Gulab Kali, an 80-year-old woman living alone with her two granddaughters, one of whom is physically disabled. She alleged that individuals were attempting to illegally dispossess her ancestral land. The court had previously directed the Principal Secretary to explain the state’s actions under the 2007 Act and outlined steps for the District Magistrate of Prayagraj to protect vulnerable senior citizens. On February 17, the court noted that the Principal Secretary’s response merely requested an extension of time without providing substantive reasons or detailing actions taken so far.#allahabad_hc #uttar_pradesh_govt #justice_atul_sreedharan #justice_siddharth_nandan #gulab_kali
