In one case, the court observed that a consensual live-in relationship between adults, even if one partner is married, is not a criminal offence. In another, it refused protection to such a couple, holding that the legal rights of a spouse cannot be undermined in the name of individual freedom. The apparent contradiction is, in fact, a reflection of a deeper legal vacuum. Indian law has moved, albeit cautiously, towards recognising live-in relationships as part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Yet, it continues to accord primacy to marriage as a legally enforceable institution, carrying rights and obligations that cannot be casually set aside. The result is a patchwork jurisprudence where courts decriminalise relationships but hesitate to legitimise their consequences.

This tension is not merely legal; it is social and moral. Marriage in India remains both a contract and a deeply embedded social norm. But the reality of modern relationships is far more fluid. Individuals do move on - sometimes without formal closure - and the law cannot remain blind to this lived reality. Denying protection or recognition does not dissolve such relationships; it merely pushes them into vulnerability and legal uncertainty. What is needed is not judicial inconsistency but legislative clarity. A framework that balances marital rights with individual autonomy is long overdue. It must acknowledge that while marriage deserves protection, personal liberty cannot be held hostage to it indefinitely.

Ultimately, the law must reflect a simple truth: when relationships break down, allowing individuals the dignity to move on is not a threat to social order. It's a necessary adaptation to it.