LI Network
Published on: October 25, 2023 at 10:45 IST
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition brought by an inter-faith live-in couple who sought police protection, asserting that live-in relationships are primarily rooted in “infatuation” and lack “stability or sincerity.”
While recognizing that the Supreme Court has upheld live-in relationships on multiple occasions, the High Court questioned the youth of the petitioners and the brevity of their time spent together, suggesting that their decision may not have been well-considered.
The two-judge bench, comprising Justices Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi, stated, “… in the span of two months at a tender age of 20-22 years, we cannot expect that the couple would be able to give serious thought over such types of temporary relationship. As mentioned above, it is more of infatuation against the opposite sex without any sincerity.”
The court went on to describe live-in relationships as “temporary and fragile” and likened them to “timepass.”
“Life is not a bed of roses. It examines every couple on the ground of hard and rough realities. Our experience shows that such types of relationships often result in timepass, temporary and fragile, and, as such, we are avoiding giving any protection to the petitioner during the stage of the investigation,” the bench emphasized.
The petitioners had filed their plea to obtain police protection and to have an FIR filed against the man by the woman’s aunt under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (related to kidnapping or abduction to compel marriage) canceled.
The aunt, who filed the case on behalf of the woman’s mother, described the man as a “road-Romeo and a vagabond” with no future, warning that he would ruin her niece’s life. She also pointed out that the man had a prior FIR filed against him under sections of the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act.
However, the woman argued that, at the age of 20, she had the right to make her own choices about her future. She further noted that her father had not registered a case in the matter.
After considering both sides, the court ruled that the arguments presented by the petitioners were insufficient grounds for canceling the FIR.
It also clarified that it would not express an opinion on such relationships until the couple decided to marry, name their relationship, or demonstrate their sincerity towards each other.