‘Live-in relationships are timepass, temporary and fragile’: Allahabad High Court rejects couple’s protection plea

While rejecting the plea of an inter-faith live-in couple, the Allahabad High Court observed that live-in relationships are more of infatuation against the opposite sex which often result in timepass. The observation by the high court came as the couple expected threat from their families and was seeking police protection from the court.

A bench of Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi was hearing a joint plea of an inter-faith couple seeking to quash the FIR against the man filed by the woman's aunt under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which prescribes punishment for kidnapping. The plea requested the court to grant them police protection as they want to continue their live-in relationship.

The opposing counsel in the case submitted that the man was a "road romeo" and he would ruin the life of the girl. He also mentioned the cases against man's parents under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act.

"No doubt that Hon'ble the Apex Court in a 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 thought over their such type of temporary relationship. As mentioned above, it is more of infatuation against (sic) the 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 results in timepass, temporary and fragile and as such, we are avoiding to give any protection to the petitioner during the stage of the investigation," Bar and Bench quoted the judges in the matter.

‘Must not be taken as judgement'

However, the bench cautioned that the court's observation must not be considered as its judgment or endorsement of the petitioner's relationship.

"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 avoids to express any opinion in such type of relationship," the bench added.

Also Read: SC rejects PIL for registration of live-in relationships with Centre; calls it “hare-brained” idea

The recognition of live-in relationships has been a contentious issue in India and is subject to various debates. Supreme Court in its various judgments like Lata Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal (2010), and Indra Sarma vs V.K.V Sarma (2013) held live-in relationships valid under Article 21 of the constitution.

In the Indra Sarma vs V.K.V Sarma case, the apex court also gave certain guidelines to determine if the live-in relationship falls “in the nature of marriage.”