Muslim Man Having A Legally Wedded Wife Can't Claim Right To Live-In-Relationship: Allahabad High Court

“The constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indian would not lend an uncanalized support to such a right, once the usages and customs prohibit such a relationship between the two individuals of the above description,” a bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I observed while refusing any relief to the petitioners in a protection cum FIR quashing plea filed by a Hindu Girl and her Muslim Live-In partner.

The Court made these observations while noting that petitioner no. 2 (Muslim man) was seeking legitimisation of his relationship with petitioner No.1 (Hindu girl) although he is already married and has a minor child of five years of age.

Further, the Court said that a writ of mandamus could not be granted to the petitioners “looking to the rights of the legitimate wife of petitioner No.2 and the interest of the minor, born out of legitimate wedlock.

Against this backdrop, the Court also “deprecated” the prayer in the petition seeking continuation of the live-in relationship even though, the Court noted, constitutional protection remains available to an Indian citizen.

“The constitutional morality and social morality in the matter of marriage institution requires to be balanced failing which social coherence for achieving the object of peace and tranquility in the society would fade and disappear,” the Court added.

Having denied the relief of mandamus as prayed for, the Court directed the investigating officer to escort petitioner No.1 safely to her parental home and submit a report to this Court of her being handed over to her parents.

In his petition, petitioner no. 2 claimed the protection of his live-in relation with petitioner no. 1 while asserting that he was given talaq by him and that now no marital tie exists between them.

However, the Court learned that he had filed a similar petition just a few days earlier, seeking similar relief.

Interestingly, in his previous petition, he had claimed that his legally wedded wife was suffering from ailments, due to which she has no objection to the relationship of both petitioners.

Noting the difference in the versions of both petitions, the Court called for a report from the concerned police station concerning petitioner no. 2's wife. The report found that his legally wedded wife was residing with her in-laws in Bombay and not in Gonda (as claimed by her husband) with her 5-year-old daughter.

Against this backdrop, the Court, at the outset, stressed that the religious tenets to which petitioner No.2 belongs do not permit live-in relationships during the subsisting marriage.

The Court further added that the position may be different if the two persons were unmarried and the parties, being major, chose to lead their lives in a way of their own.

“The constitutional morality in that situation may come to the rescue of such a couple, and the social morality settled through the customs and usages over ages may give way to the constitutional morality and protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may step in to protect the cause,” the Court said.

However, in the instant case, the Court noted that despite having a legally wedded wife, petitioner No. 2 sought legitimization of his live-in relations, which was impermissible as per his religion. Given this, the Court refused any relief sought in the petition.