LI Network
Published on: 3 August 2023 at 10:39 IST
The Allahabad High Court recently turned down a plea by a 17-year-old boy seeking protection from criminal prosecution for his alleged live-in relationship with a 19-year-old girl.
Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Rajendra Kumar-IV held that the accused, being a minor, cannot seek such protection for kidnapping charges filed against him for his relationship with the major girl.
The Court emphasized that live-in relationships, in general, have not been provided any “protective umbrella under any law” and that any protection extended is only for two adults in such a relationship. It asserted that a child cannot be in a live-in relationship as it would be both immoral and illegal, and the law does not offer any protection to minors in such cases.
The case involved a 19-year-old woman and her 17-year-old live-in partner. A criminal case was filed against the boy, accusing him of kidnapping the woman. In response, the couple filed a petition before the High Court to quash the FIR under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her to marry) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the woman left her house voluntarily and that no offense was committed by the boy. However, it was admitted that the boy was a minor.
The woman and boy were later taken away by the woman’s family, leading to a habeas corpus plea being filed.
The Court emphasized that live-in relationships are not permitted under Muslim Law, as observed by a bench at the High Court’s Lucknow branch in a previous case.
It also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in D Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal, which defined a “relationship in the nature of marriage” as akin to a common-law marriage and required both parties to be of legal age to marry.
Considering the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), which considers anyone below 18 years of age as a child, the Court concluded that the boy’s live-in relationship was not protected by law.
The Court dismissed the plea, stating that it was not a suitable case for exercising its extraordinary powers under its writ jurisdiction.
