Sejal Chaturvedi –
On Tuesday, the Division Bench led by Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Dinesh Pathak had dismissed a protection plea from a live-in couple.
The Bench rejected this plea on the ground that the woman in that live-in relationship was already married to someone else.
Thus, the Court had observed that, “We fail to understand how such a petition be allowed permitting illegality in the society.”
Further the Court stated that, “Can we grant protection to the people who want to commit what can be said to be an act which is against the mandate of the Hindu Marriage Act. Article 21 of the Constitution of India may permit a person to have own liberty but the liberty has to be within the ambit of law which applies to them“
However, the Court had to give a statement later today, that could also be observed as clarification, that it was not against live-in relations.
On Friday when the Bench was hearing the petition, it was informed that the petitioning couple had converted their live-in relationship to a marriage. They had entered in a wedlock in Arya Samaj Temple, while the petition was sub judice.
The Court further observed that petitioners were before the Court on an apprehension that they would be harassed and would not be permitted to live in peace by private respondents.
Thus, in the said case the Court ordered the police to provide them with protection after confirming all of the petitioners’ paperwork, on the grounds that they are both of marriageable age and although they wanted to be in a live-in relation together but later married to each other.
Further the Court emphasising its stand added in its statement, “We are not against the live-in relation. Yesterday we have rejected a matter seeking protection by a couple who wanted to live in relation. The reason were that the protection to live in relation was sought for by the petitioners during subsistence of marriage of one of the petitioners.”