Allahabad High Court, while hearing the application for police protection of an inter-religious couple living in a live-in partnership, said that there is a lack of stability and honesty in such relationships. Live-in relationships are mainly for “time pass”. With this comment, the High Court rejected the petition of a live-in couple seeking police protection. In fact, a joint petition was filed in the High Court on behalf of a Hindu woman and a Muslim man, in which an FIR was registered against them under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code ACT 366) accusing them of the crime of kidnapping. ) was demanded to be cancelled. The complaint against the accused Muslim youth was lodged by the girl’s aunt. The couple had approached the High Court against this and demanded police protection. Apart from this, they had decided to continue their live-in relationship.
Life is not a bed of roses- Court
Hearing the case, a bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohammad Azhar Hussain Idrisi said that there is no doubt that the Honorable Supreme Court has legalized live-in relationships in many cases, but at the age of 20-22 years With just a span of two months, we can’t expect that the couple will be able to live together even though they are serious about their type of temporary relationship. The court said that the love of this couple is just attraction towards the opposite sex without any sincerity. Life is not a bed of roses, rather life tests every couple on the ground of difficult situations and realities. The judges said that our experience shows that such relationships are often timepass, temporary and delicate and as such, we are avoiding giving any protection to the petitioner during the investigation stage.
The boy is a “road-romeo” and a vagabond – opposing sides.
In the court, the lawyer of the petitioner girl argued that she is above 20 years of age, she has the full right to decide her future and she has chosen to live in a live-in relationship with the accused. In response, the counsel for the opposing side argued that her live-in partner was already facing a case registered under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act. The opposing side also argued in the court that the accused is a “road-romeo” and a vagabond who has no future and will definitely ruin the girl’s life.
In such relationships, there is more attachment than stability and honesty – Court
After hearing the arguments and arguments of both the parties, the High Court expressed its reservations regarding live-in relationship and said that the court’s stand should neither be misconstrued as a judgment or endorsement of the relationship of the petitioners nor as per law. That should be taken as protection against any legal action taken. The judges wrote in their decision that the court believes that in this type of relationship there is more infatuation than stability and honesty. Unless the couple decides to get married and give a name to their relationship or they are honest with each other, the court refrains from expressing any opinion on this type of relationship. With these comments, the court rejected the petitioner’s application seeking police protection.