Impermissible For A Person Below 18 Years Of Age To Be In A 'Live In Relation', Such Acts Are Immoral, Illegal: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a 'child' (a person below the age of 18 years) cannot be in a live-in relationship and this would be an act not only immoral but also illegal.

The Court also said that there are several conditions for a live-in relation to be treated as a relation in nature of marriage and in any case, a person has to be major (above the age of 18 years) although he may not be of marriageable age (21 years).

Significantly, the bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV added that an accused who is below 18 years of age cannot seek protection on the ground of having a live-in relationship with a major girl and thus, he cannot seek quashing of the criminal prosecution against him, as his / her activity "is not permissible in law and is thus illegal".

"In case, this is permitted, this would amount to putting premium on an illegal activity and thus would not be in the interest of our society and we are not inclined to put a seal of approval on such legally impermissible activities," the Court further remarked.

The Court made these observations while dismissing a criminal writ petition filed by a 19-year-old Girl (Saloni Yadav/Petitioner no. 1) and 17-year-Old Boy (Ali Abbas/Petitioner no. 2) seeking to quash the FIR lodged against the boy under Sections 363, 366 IPC, for allegedly Abducting the Girl, with an additional prayer not to arrest the Boy in the case.

It was the brief case of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is major and has left her house voluntarily, therefore, no offence under Section 363 IPC is made out. The alleged victim also filed a supplementary affidavit stating therein that petitioner no. 1 is major and she had gone with petitioner no. 2 of her own free will.

It was their further case that both of them started living with each other on April 27, 2023, and the FIR was lodged by the family member of the Girl on April 30. Thereafter, after the filing of the present petition on May 13, the informant's side kidnapped the petitioners from Prayagraj and took them to their village, however, on May 15, the Girl somehow managed to escape and reached the place of the father of the petitioner no. 2/boy and narrated the entire story.

High Court's observations

Taking into account the facts of the case, the Court at the outset referred to Allahabad High Court's ruling in the case of Kiran Rawat And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 201 to note that as the boy-petitioner no. 2 is a Muslim, therefore, his relationship with the Girl is 'Zina' as per Muslim Law and thus, impermissible.

The Court further noted that a person below the age of 18 years is considered to be a child and such a child cannot have a live-in relationship and this would be an act not only immoral but also illegal as by itself. The Court added that such a relationship "has not been given any protective umbrella under any law of the land" except that two major persons have the right to live their own life and to that extent, their personal liberty is to be protected.

"There is no law which prohibits the live-in relationship, which is a premarital sex in the present case. However, in the present case the boy is not major or of 18 years of age and being a child cannot be permitted to have such relationship," the Court added.

Further, adverting to the facts of the case, the Court said that the activity of the live-in relationship in the present case is of an extremely short duration which "cannot come in support of the case of the petitioners".

The Court also opined that in view of the undisputed fact in respect of age of the petitioner No. 2 and the categorical assertion that the petitioners are in a live-in relationship, whether any offence under Section 366 IPC is made out or not is yet to be investigated

The Court further noted that the Girl had come forward to file the affidavit against the prosecution case when admittedly she was in the company of the accused side (family of the boy/accused). The Court also observed that no statement of the alleged victim under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been recorded by the Investigating Officer or by the court and therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no use of force, or in any case, inducement as per Section 366 IPC.

"In any case, whether this act of ‘abduction’, which is covered under Section 366 IPC, by means of ‘any deceitful means induces’ and is the result of inducement, is a matter of investigation and at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out taking shelter of, as in the present case, on the ground of impermissible live-in relationship...In the present case, the element of inducement is there or not is yet to be investigated particularly in the background of the admitted facts of this case when nobody is coming forward for recording statement. Thus, act of abduction has been done and consequently offence is committed under Section 366 IPC or not is yet to be ascertained by the investigating agency", the Court said.

Against this backdrop, the Court dismissed the plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Mohd. Monis

Counsel for Respondent: G.A., Amar Bahadur Maurya, Arvind Singh, Deepak Dubey, Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, Maan Singh, Manoj Kumar Kushwaha, Sunil Kumar Kushwaha

Case Title - Saloni Yadav And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 238 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7996 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 238

Click Here To Read/Download Order