Married Woman In Live-In Relation- "Can't Permit Such An Illegality": Allahabad High Court Dismisses Protection Plea With 5k Cost
Noting that the Woman is already married and is in a live-in relationship with another man, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed her protection plea with 5k cost.A Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Dinesh Pathak observed that:"We fail to understand how such a petition be allowed permitting illegality in the society."Noting that a Married Woman is In...
Noting that the Woman is already married and is in a live-in relationship with another man, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed her protection plea with 5k cost.
A Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Dinesh Pathak observed that:
"We fail to understand how such a petition be allowed permitting illegality in the society."
Noting that a Married Woman is In a #LiveInRelationship, the #AllahabadHighCourt recently dismissed a #ProtectionPlea With 5k Cost and observed that:"We fail to understand how such a petition be allowed permitting illegality in the society." pic.twitter.com/M9YDDABJIW— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) June 17, 2021
Petitioner no. 1 (woman) is a major and she was in a live-in relationship with Petitioner no. 2 (major Man). They, in their protection plea, sought direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere and disturb their peaceful live-in-relation by adopting coercive measures.
To this, the court observed:
"Can we grant protection to the people who want to commit what can be said to be an act which is against the mandate of the Hindu Marriage Act. Article 21 of the Constitution of India may permit a person to have own liberty but the liberty has to be within the ambit of law which applies to them"
Further, the Court observed that the woman is the legally wedded wife of respondent no. 5 and remarked:
"She has for whatever reasons decided to go away from her husband, can we permit them to live in relation under the guise of protection of life and liberty."
Significantly, the Court also observed that whether her husband had committed an act which can be said to be an offence under Section 377 I.P.C. for which she has never complained of, all these are disputed questions of facts.
Recently, the Punjab & Haryana High Court directed SSP, Faridkot to look into the grievance of an already married woman and an unmarried man living together in a live-in relationship and seeking protection of life and liberty against private parties.
The Bench of Justice Vivek Puri disposed of their plea with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot to look into the grievance of the petitioners (married woman and unmarried man) as projected in their representation.
Dealing with a plea of the Petitioners (Woman-Man) who sought the protection of life and liberty, the Rajasthan High Court, after noting that Petitioner No. 2 (Man) was already married, ruled that:
"A live-in-relationship between a married and unmarried person is not permissible."
The Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari was hearing the plea of a Woman aged 29 and a Man aged 31, who sought the protection of life and liberty.
Dealing with the protection plea of a Live-In-couple, who are yet to attain the marriageable age, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently remarked that the majority of petitions by the Live-In couples contain formal symbolic averments, grounds with the imaginary cause of action, and are rarely founded upon 'actual' or 'real' existence of a threat.
The Bench of Justice Manoj Bajaj was hearing the plea of one Daya Ram [20 years old] and Reenu [14 years old], who claimed that they knew each other for the last one year and with the passage of time, they fell in love, however, the parents of Reenu are opposing their relationship.
Dealing with the plea of an inter-religious couple who alleged that private respondent/s is interfering with their marital life and liberty, the Allahabad High Court recently clarified that the fact of the petitioner (Girl) having converted to Islam would not be a relevant factor while ensuring that there is no interference in the liberty of the petitioners.
The Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai was hearing the plea of a Girl (aged 20 years who converted to Islam) and Man (aged 40 years) and they sought direction upon the respondents not to interfere with their marital life and liberty.
Case title- Smt. Geeta And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Read Order