"We Aren't Against Live-In Relation": Allahabad High Court Orders Protection For Same-Sex Couple

The Allahabad High Court recently granted police protection to a same-sex couple after noting that the court is not against live-in relationships.

Essentially, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Ajai Tyagi was dealing with a protection plea of one Anju Singh and her live-in partner, who moved to the High Court claiming that they would be harassed and would not be permitted to live in peace by private respondents if protection isn't granted to them.

They submitted before the Court that they are the major girls who wanted to live-in relation and are same-sex couples.

They also submitted that their parents threatened to kill the petitioners if they don't end their relationship and they also threatened to falsely implicate the petitioners in a criminal case.

Against this backdrop, stressing that the Court is not against live-in relation, the Court directed the police to grant them protection after verifying all the documents.

the court also referred to Apex Court's rulings in the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi, and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396.

With these observations, this petition was partly allowed.

Related news

Significantly, observing that live-in-relationship cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this Country¸the Allahabad High Court, in August 2021, dismissed the protection plea of a married woman living with her partner with an exemplary cost of Rs.5,000.

Calling her live-in relationship with her partner an illicit relationship, the Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker (part of the instant case as well) and Justice Subhash Chand observed thus:

"Directing the police to grant protection to them may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relations"

In June 2021, the Allahabad High Court had, in the matter of a young couple who wanted to live in relation, said that it was not against the live in relationships, but rejected a protection plea by a couple who wanted to live in relation as the plea was filed during the subsistence of marriage of one of the petitioners.

However, recently the Allahabad High Court had observed that live-in relationships are required to be viewed from the lens of personal autonomy rather than the notions of social morality.

Significantly, while hearing a protection plea filed by a same-sex couple, the Madras High Court on Monday (22^nd March) expressed its desire to hear the parties in-camera in view of the sensitivity involved in the matter and thus posted the matter for hearing on March 29.

Again, dealing with a protection plea filed by a same-sex couple, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of Madras High Court on Monday (29^th March) observed that he was trying to break his own preconceived notions about the issue and he was in the process of evolving.

Recently, the Delhi High Court has listed a batch of pleas seeking recognition and registration of same-sex marriages under the law for a final hearing on November 30.

The bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh has meanwhile granted time to all the parties to complete their pleadings.

The Bench was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Vaibhav Jain, Dr Kavita Arora, an OCI cardholder Joydeep Sengupta and his partner Russell Blaine Stephens.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central Government contended that 'spouse' means husband and wife, 'marriage' is a term associated with heterosexual couples and thus there is no need to file a specific reply with respect to the Citizenship Act.

"The law as it stands...marriage is permissible between biological man and biological woman," he said.