‘Live-in relationships are timepass, temporary and fragile’: Allahabad High Court
While rejecting the plea of an inter-faith live-in couple, the Allahabad High Court observed that live-in relationships are more of infatuation against the opposite sex which often result in timepass. The observation by the high court came as the couple expected threat from their families and was seeking police protection from the court.
A bench of Rahul Chaturvedi and Mohd Azhar Husain Idrisi was hearing a joint plea of an inter-faith couple seeking to quash the FIR against the man filed by the woman's aunt under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which prescribes punishment for kidnapping. The plea requested the court to grant them police protection as they want to continue their live-in relationship.
The opposing counsel in the case submitted that the man was a "road romeo" and he would ruin the life of the girl. He also mentioned the cases against man's parents under the Uttar Pradesh Gangster Act.
‘Must not be taken as judgement'
However, the bench cautioned that the court's observation must not be considered as its judgment or endorsement of the petitioner's 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 avoids to express any opinion in such type of relationship," the bench added.
The recognition of live-in relationships has been a contentious issue in India and is subject to various debates. Supreme Court in its various judgments like Lata Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal (2010), and Indra Sarma vs V.K.V Sarma (2013) held live-in relationships valid under Article 21 of the constitution.
In the Indra Sarma vs V.K.V Sarma case, the apex court also gave certain guidelines to determine if the live-in relationship falls “in the nature of marriage."