'Such Relations Are Often Timepass, More Of Infatuation Sans Sincerity': Allahabad HC On Inter-Religious Couple's 'Live-In' Union

While dismissing a plea filed by an interfaith live-in couple seeking protection from the police as they continue to be in a live-in relationship, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that such relationships are more about infatuation for the opposite sex without any sincerity and they often result into timepass.

Though accepting that the Supreme Court has, in several cases, validated the live-in relationship, the bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi however added that in the span of two months and that too, at a tender age of 20-22 years, the Court cannot expect that the couple would be able to give serious thought over such type of temporary 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 avoid to express any opinion in such type of relationship," the Court remarked.

Essentially, these observations came from the bench while dealing with a petition filed jointly by a Hindu girl and a Muslim boy challenging an FIR lodged against the boy (by the girl's aunt) under Section 366 IPC. In their plea, they also sought protection from the police as the couple had decided to "remain in a live-in relationship".

Before the Court, the petitioner-girl, through her counsel, contended she is over 20 years in age and as such, being a major, she has every right to decide her future and she has chosen petitioner no.2, as her boyfriend with whom she wants to have a live-in relationship.

On the other hand, the counsel for the informant (girl's aunt) vehemently opposed the plea by contending that the girl's partner is already facing an FIR u/s 2/3 of the U.P. Gangster Act and that he is a road-Romeo and a vagabond, who has no future and in all certainty, he would ruin the life of the girl.

Taking note of the facts of the case, the Court, in its order, expressed its reservation regarding such type of relationship. However, it did add that its views should not be misconstrued that it is passing any remark or validating such type of relationship of the petitioners or protecting them from any legal proceeding instituted following the law.

Furthermore, noting that such relations are more of infatuation without sincerity and that they often result in timepass, which is temporary and fragile, the Court refused to grant any protection to the petitioner during the stage of investigation.

Case title - Radhika And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15096 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 401

Click Here To Read/Download Order