Rajasthan HC Denies Protection To Married Lady In Live-In Relation By Relying On Allahabad HC's 'Social Fabric' Order
The Rajasthan High Court recently denied police protection to a married lady, who is in a live-in relationship with another man and who sought police protection against some private persons who are not happy with her relationship.The Bench of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma relied upon the recent order of the Allahabad High Court wherein the Court had dismissed the protection plea of a married...
The Rajasthan High Court recently denied police protection to a married lady, who is in a live-in relationship with another man and who sought police protection against some private persons who are not happy with her relationship.
The Bench of Justice Satish Kumar Sharma relied upon the recent order of the Allahabad High Court wherein the Court had dismissed the protection plea of a married woman living with her partner with the exemplary cost of Rs.5,000 while noting thus:
"...none law-abiding citizen who is already married under the Hindu Marriage Act can seek the protection of this Court for an illicit relationship, which is not within the purview of the social fabric of this country. The sanctity of marriage pre-supposes divorce. If she has any difference with her husband, she has first to move for getting separated from her spouse as per the law applicable to the community if Hindu Law does not apply to her."
The case before the Court
Claiming that the petitioner is a married lady but she has been compelled to leave her matrimonial house and at present, she is living with petitioner No.2 (her live-in partner), she moved before the Rajasthan High Court seeking police protection.
Court's observations
Referring to Allahabad High Court's recent ruling, the Court observed that "It is well settled legal position...that live-in relationships cannot be at the cost of the social fabric of this country, and directing the police to grant protection may indirectly give our assent to such illicit relations."
Therefore, taking into account the above legal position, the prayer for granting police protection was rejected, however, the Court added, in case any offence is committed with the petitioners they are at liberty to lodge FIR in the concerned police station or may take available legal recourse.
Importantly, delivering the order on August 10, the Court had, erroneously, disposed of the plea with the direction to the concerned Station House Officer to treat the plea as a complaint and after due inquiry, take necessary preventive measures and other steps to ensure safety and security of the petitioners in accordance with law.
However, on August 13, the Court issued the clarification that the earlier order's operative portion had been recorded totally inconsistent with the finding of the Court, and therefore, the Court ordered the same to be removed from the Court's website.
Case title - Smt. Maya Devi v. State of Rajasthan and others
Read Order