A heterosexual couple have won the right to enter a civil partnership instead of getting married after a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court.

Five judges unanimously granted the appeal by Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, today after a four-year battle.

Speaking outside the court in London, the overjoyed pair said they did it for 'Britain's 3.3million cohabiting couples' and blasted the Government for wasting 'tax payers' cash' fighting their challenge.

The duo have spent years urging the Government to allow heterosexual couples to enter a civil partnership as an alternative to marriage.

Overjoyed: Rebecca Steinfeld, 37, and Charles Keidan, 41, punched the air outside the Supreme Court this morning after five judges ruled in their favour

Currently the Civil Partnership Act 2004 only allows same-sex couples. But Dr Steinfeld and Mr Keidan argued civil partnerships would give legal security to couples who don't wish to have a religious ceremony.

Lawyers say the move could put pressure on the Government to change legislation allowing everyone the opportunity to apply for a civil partnership.

The academics, who live in Hammersmith, west London, suffered defeat at the Court of Appeal in February last year, but were given the go-ahead in August for a Supreme Court hearing today.

Punching the air in jubilation, both Dr Steinfeld and Mr Keidan showed their joy after the historic ruling was made this morning.

'We did it for Britain's 3.3 million couples!': The jubilant duo embraced before giving a statement about their four-year court battle

Dr Steinfeld said: 'We are feeling elated that the Supreme Court has ruled that this mistreatment cannot continue any longer.

What does a civil partnership offer? · Legal and financial protection for both parties in the vent of a relationship ending · It is free of the religious connotations of marriage · Some object to marriage as an institution and its associations with property and patriarchy Advertisement

'It's been a long journey, we've been to three courts finally and have fought toe to toe over four years but finally we have this resounding victory.

'At the same time we are feeling somewhat sorrowful that the government have spent tax payers money fighting the judges have called a blatant inequality.

'We hope the government is going to do the right thing at last and extend civil partnerships to every body.'

Her partner Mr Keidan added: 'There are 3.3million cohabiting couples in the UK, we are the fastest growing family type.

He said: 'Many want legal and financial security but cannot have this because in the eyes of the law they are not married. The law and government needs to catch up with family life in 2018. People are already suffering because of this.'

Landmark: The pair will be able to enter Britain's first ever heterosexual civil partnership

He added: 'Today's declaration means the government is legally bound to end the mistreatment of people who are not married; human rights is meant to be progressive.'

The couple urged Women's Minister Penny Mordant to fast track a private member's bill supporting their cause.

After learning of the ruling, a Government Equalities Office spokesman said it was 'very aware' of its legal obligations and would consider the judgement with 'great care'.

'Jubilant': The couple urged Women's Minister Penny Mordant to fast track a private member's bill supporting their cause

In a statement, a spokesman said: 'The Government is very aware of its legal obligations, and we will obviously be considering this judgment of the Supreme Court with great care.

'We recognise the sensitive and personal issues involved in this case and acknowledge, as the Supreme Court does, the genuine convictions of the couple involved.

How landmark court ruling means two people could become legally a couple without having to get married Lawyers believe this landmark court ruling could change the law so couples in love no longer have to get married to be legally recognised as one another's spouses. Currently marriage is the only option for heterosexual couples in Britain but campaigners like Rebecca Steinfeld and her partner want this to change. Henry Venables, specialist family law solicitor and director at Maguire Family Law said he believes this decision will put pressure on the Government to make the Civil Partnership Act 2004 inclusive to everyone. He said: 'This decision will now put pressure on Parliament to change the law. If the law does change it will mean that same-sex and different-sex couples will be able to formalise their relationships using either marriage or a civil partnership. 'Such a freedom of choice has to be considered a good thing. Whilst for many, marriage remains a positive tradition, but for others it can represent hallmarks of an old-fashioned and patriarchal society. The ruling in this case should be welcomed across the board. 'Interestingly, the judges criticised the Government for failing to deal with the discrepancy between same-sex couples' ability to choose between civil partnerships and marriage, and different-sex couples who only have marriage when the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act came into force in 2013.' Advertisement

'We will study the Court's judgment carefully and respond in due course.'

The panel of Supreme Court justices, including the court's president, Lady Hale, heard the couple's case in May and announced their decision this morning.

The judges granted a declaration that the 2004 Act was 'incompatible' with human rights laws on discrimination and right to a private and family life.

Lord Kerr, announcing the court's decision, said the Government 'does not seek to justify the difference in treatment between same-sex and different sex couples'.

He added: 'To the contrary, it accepts that the difference cannot be justified.'

What the Government sought was 'tolerance of the discrimination while it sorts out how to deal with it'.

He concluded: 'That cannot be characterised as a legitimate aim.'

Lord Kerr said it was 'salutary to recall that a declaration of incompatibility does not oblige the Government or Parliament to do anything'.

The couple, who have two daughters aged nine months and two, claimed the Government's position is 'incompatible with equality law'.

During the hearing, their barrister, Karon Monaghan QC, told the court they have 'deep-rooted and genuine ideological objections to marriage' and are 'not alone' in their views.

She said matrimony was 'historically heteronormative and patriarchal' and the couple's objections were 'not frivolous'.

Ms Monaghan added: 'These are important issues, no small matters, and they are serious for my clients because they cannot marry conformable with their conscience and that should weigh very heavily indeed.'

The Court of Appeal agreed that the couple had established a potential violation of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which relates to discrimination, taken with Article 8, which refers to respect for private and family life.

But, by a majority of two to one, the judges said the interference was justified by the Government's policy of 'wait and evaluate'.

The Government said it was decided, after public consultations and debate in Parliament, not to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples, abolish them or phase them out at that stage.

The aim was to see how extending marriage to same-sex couples impacted on civil partnerships before making a final decision which, if reversed in a few years' time, would be disruptive, unnecessary and extremely expensive.