Observations Of SC Can’t Be Considered To Promote Such Relationships: Allahabad HC While Denying Relief To Inter-Religious Live-In Couple

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench while denying relief to an inter-religious couple has said that the observations of the Supreme Court cannot be considered to promote such relationships.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Narendra Kumar Johari held, “The Observations of the Supreme Court as aforesaid however cannot be considered to promote such relationships. Law traditionally has been biased in favour of marriage. It reserves many rights and privileges to married persons to preserve and encourage the institution of marriage. the Supreme Court is simply accepting a social reality and it has no intention to unravel the fabric of Indian family life. Awareness has to be created in young minds not just from the point of view of emotional and societal pressures that such relationships may create, but also from the perspective that it could give rise to various legal hassles on issues like division of property, violence and cheating within live-in relationships, rehabilitation in case of desertion by or death of a partner and handling of custody and other issues when it comes to children born from such relationships.”

The Bench further held that the partners in a live-in relationship do not enjoy an automatic right of inheritance to the property of their partner.

Advocate Jalaj Kumar Gupta appeared on behalf of the petitioners while AGA Arun Kumar Pandey appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Brief Facts -

The petitioners came before the court praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus to be issued to the respondents not to disturb their peaceful living. It was submitted that the petitioners due to their love and affection towards each other decided to live in a live-in relationship and they were aged about 29 and 30 years living with each other due to their prolonged love and affection.

An FIR was lodged against the petitioners and it was alleged that the local police was harassing the petitioner no. 1’s live-in partner and his family members as she was living with him. The petitioners were a woman and a man being Hindu and Muslim respectively by faith and loved each other. They claimed the benefit of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh v. State of UP and another, 2006 (5) SCC 475.

The High Court in view of the above facts of the case noted, “The Supreme Court observed that a man and a woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an offence. It said that there was no law which prohibits live in relationships or premarital sex. Living together was interpreted as a facet of right to life. … The Supreme Court has observed on several occasions that section 125 Cr.P.C. is not meant for granting of maintenance to the "other woman", where a man having a living lawfully wedded wife either married a second time or started living with a concubine it has refused to extend the meaning of the word wife as denoted in section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to include such live-in partners for maintenance claims.”

The Court observed that in Muslim law, no recognition can be given to sex outside marriage and that ‘Zina’ being defined as any sexual intercourse except that between husband and wife includes both extramarital sex and premarital sex often translated as fornication in English.

“Such premarital sex is not permissible in Islam. In fact any sexual, lustful, affectionate acts such as kissing, touching, staring etc. are "Haram" in Islam before marriage because these are considered parts of "Zina" which may lead to actual "Zina" itself. The punishment for such offence according to Quran (chapter 24) is hundred lashes for the unmarried male and female who commit fornication together with the punishment prescribed by the "Sunnah" for the married male and female that is stoning to death”, said the Court.

The Court further noted that no person can be allowed to threaten or commit or instigate acts of violence or harass adult persons who undergo inter-caste or inter-religious marriage and that the administration/police authorities can be directed to see to it that the couple, upon being otherwise major and eligible, to contract, should not be harassed by anyone.

“It has also been observed in some judgements that live in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenic sex does not amount to any offence. … Writ jurisdiction being extraordinary jurisdiction is not made to resolve such type of dispute between two private parties. We believe that it is a social problem which can be uprooted socially and not by the intervention of the Writ Court in the garb of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless harassment is established beyond doubt”, held the Court.

The Court said that if there is any real grievance of a live-in couple against their parents or relatives who are allegedly interfering with their live-in status which goes to such an extent that there is a threat of life, they are at liberty to lodge an F.I.R. under Section 154 (1) or Section 154 (3) of the Cr.PC., with the Police, move an application under Section 156 (3) before the competent Court or file a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

“Similarly, in case the parents or relatives, find that illegally their son or daughter has eloped for the purpose of marriage, although he or she is underage or not inclined or the respondents are behaving violently, they are equally at liberty to take steps in a similar manner. But, when neither of the actions are taken against each other, and only a fictitious application with certain allegations, particularly by such persons as the petitioners herein enjoying a live-in relationship, is moved under Writ jurisdiction of the High Court, it appears to be a circuitous way to get the seal and signature of the High Court upon their conduct without any verification of their age and other necessary aspects required to be done by the appropriate authority”, concluded the Court.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plea and held that in case the petitioners approach the appropriate Court of law or the police authority concerned raising their grievances, the same may be considered in accordance with the law.

Cause Title- Kiran Rawat and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC-LKO:36670-DB)

Click here to read/download the Judgment