"We Are Not Against Live-In Relation But Can't Give Protection When One Of The Live-In Partners Is Married": Allahabad High Court

In what could be termed as a clarification, the Allahabad High Court on Friday said that it is 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.

It may be noted that a Division Bench of Justice Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Justice Dinesh Pathak on Tuesday, while observing that the Woman was already married, and was in a live-in relationship with another man, dismissed the protection plea by the couple with 5k cost.

The Division Bench had observed that:

"We fail to understand how such a petition be allowed permitting illegality in the society."

The court had also 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"

On Friday, the Bench was presiding over a petition filed by a young couple who wanted to live in relation.

The Court was conveyed that the said live in relation now converted into marriage as they have entered into wedlock in Arya Samaj Temple during the pendency of the writ petition.

The Court noted that the petitioners were before the Court on an apprehension that they would be harassed and would not be permitted to live in peace by private respondents.

Therefore, in the instant case, noting that both the petitioners are of marriageable age and they wanted to live in relation, but subsequently, married each other, the Court ordered the police to grant them protection after verifying all the documents.

Significantly, the Court also added:

"We are not against the live in relation. Yesterday we have rejected a matter seeking protection by a couple who wanted to live in relation. The reasons were that the protection to live in relation was sought for by the petitioners during subsistence of marriage of one of the petitioners."

Click here To Download Order

Read Order