The Allahabad High Court recently observed that live-relationships are predominantly “time pass” and are characterised by a lack of stability and sincerity.
While rejecting a plea filed by an inter-faith live-in couple seeking police protection, a Bench of Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi observed,
“No doubt that Hon’ble the Apex Court in number of cases, have validated the live-in relationship but in the span of two months in a tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would be able to give a serious though over their such type of temporary relationship. As mentioned above, it is more of infatuation against (sic) opposite sex without any sincerity. The life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows, that such type of relationship often result into timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed jointly by the couple – a Hindu woman and a Muslim man – seeking quashing of the first information report (FIR) registered against the latter alleging the offence of kidnapping under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed by the woman’s aunt.
The couple also sought police protection as they had chosen to continue their live-in relationship.
The counsel for the woman argued that she is over 20 years of age, has every right to decide her future and has chosen to be in a live-in relationship with the accused.
The opposing counsel contended that her partner is already facing an FIR registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act. It was argued that he is a “road-romeo” and a vagabond who has no future and in all certainty, would ruin the life of the girl.
After considering the facts, the Court expressed its reservations concerning live-in relationships.
Nonetheless, the Bench made it clear that its stance should neither be misinterpreted as a judgment or endorsement of the petitioners’ relationship nor as a safeguard against any lawful actions taken in accordance with the law.
“The Court feels that such type of relationship is more of infatuation than to have stability and sincerity. Unless and until the couple decides to marry and give the name of their relationship or they are sincere towards each other, the Court shuns and avoid to express any opinion in such type of relationship.”
With these observations, the Court dismissed the plea.
Advocates Shadab Ahmad and Sadaqat Ullah Khan represented petitioners.
Advocates Dhirendra Kumar Verma and Srawan Kumar Swarnkar represented the State and the complainant respectively.
Source Link
