In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, delivered a judgment denying relief to an inter-religious couple seeking protection from alleged harassment. The court stressed that the observations made by the Supreme Court should not be misconstrued as promoting live-in relationships.
The division bench, comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari, acknowledged that the Supreme Court recognizes the existence of such relationships but highlighted the legal and social complexities associated with them.
Brief Facts:
The case before the court involved a Hindu-Muslim couple aged 29 and 30, respectively, who approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus to prevent any interference with their peaceful cohabitation. The petitioners, deeply in love, had chosen to live together in a live-in relationship. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Lata Singh v. State of UP and another (2006), which recognized live-in relationships and premarital sex as aspects of the right to life. However, the Allahabad High Court carefully examined the case's facts and concluded that the petitioners' allegations lacked substantiation.
Observations of the Court:
The court highlighted that Indian law traditionally favors marriage, granting numerous rights and privileges to married individuals to uphold and encourage the institution of marriage. The Supreme Court, in accepting the existence of live-in relationships, seeks to acknowledge the social reality without intending to disrupt the fabric of Indian family life. The court stressed the need for creating awareness among young individuals regarding the emotional, societal, and legal challenges that may arise from such relationships. It mentioned potential legal issues like property division, violence, cheating, rehabilitation in case of abandonment or death, and matters concerning children born from such relationships.
The Allahabad High Court also recognized the religious aspect of the case, noting that Islam does not recognize sex outside of marriage, and any form of premarital or extramarital sexual activity is considered "haram." The court reiterated that it is not permissible under Islamic law and highlighted the severe punishments prescribed for such acts. However, the court clarified that no person should be allowed to threaten, commit acts of violence, or harass adults involved in inter-caste or inter-religious marriages. It emphasized that the administration and police authorities should protect eligible individuals from such harassment.
Regarding the petitioners' plea for protection, the court held that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to resolve private disputes between individuals. It stated that such social issues should be addressed socially rather than through the intervention of the court, unless harassment is clearly established. The court advised that if a live-in couple faces interference to the extent that their lives are threatened, they should file a complaint with the police, seek court intervention, or take appropriate legal measures.
Case Title: Kiran Rawat and Another v. State of U.P. and Other
Coram: Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari
Case No.: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 3310 of 2023
Advocates of the Appellant: Advocate Jalaj Kumar Gupta
Advocates of the Respondent: AGA Arun Kumar Pandey
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
