Allahabad HC calls live-in relationships timepass, says they lack sincerity

The petitioner, through her lawyer, told the court that she is 20-years-old and has every right to decide on her future

Live-in relationships are more about infatuation for the opposite sex, lack sincerity and often result in timepass, said the Allahabad High Court while refusing to grant police protection to an interfaith couple.

The observations were made while the high court was hearing a petition filed jointly by a Hindu woman and her Muslim partner challenging an FIR lodged against the Muslim man by the woman's aunt under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In their petition before court, the interfaith couple sought protection from the police and told the court that the couple had decided to "remain in a live-in relationship".

 

Hearing the petition, a bench of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi and Justice Azhar Husain Idri, said, "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 expressing any opinion on such a type of relationship."

The woman petitioner, through her lawyer, told the court that she is 20-years-old and has every right to decide on her future and she has chosen petitioner number 2 as her boyfriend with whom she wants to have a live-in relationship.

The lawyer for the informant, the girl's aunt, told the court that the aunt vehemently opposes the plea, contending that the girl's partner is already facing an FIR under the UP Gangster Act and that he is a "roadside Romeo" and a "vagabond" who has no future, and in all certainty, "would ruin the life of the girl".

The court expressed its reservation about such a relationship and noted that such relations are often a result of infatuation without sincerity and often result in timepass.

The court also refused to grant any protection to the petitioner, adding that its views should not be misconstrued that the court is passing any remark or validating such type of relationship of the petitioners or protecting them from any legal proceeding instituted following the law.