'Surprising That A Minor Boy Dependent Upon Father Wants To Be In A Live-In Relation': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To A Couple

A bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi observed thus while dealing with a plea filed by a girl (Anchal Rajbhar) and her minor live-in partner (Jaihind Rajbhar) seeking to quash an FIR lodged against the boy under Section 366 IPC.

Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Court noted that the petitioners are in a live-in relationship and that while the girl/petitioner no. 1 is 19 years of age, the petitioner no. 2, is a minor, who is dependent upon his parents.

In view of this, the Court opined that there is no occasion or reason to quash the FIR in the exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the prayer for quashing the FIR was declined and refused and the writ petition was rejected.

In related news, the Allahabad High Court had recently observed that a 'child' (a person below the age of 18 years) cannot be in a live-in relationship and this would be an act not only immoral but also illegal.

The Court also said that there are several conditions for a live-in relation to be treated as a relation in nature of marriage and in any case, a person has to be major (above the age of 18 years) although he may not be of marriageable age (21 years).

In another development, 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.

Case title - Anchal Rajbhar And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 403 [CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15799 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 403

Click Here To Read/Download Order