Person Reposing Faith In Islam Cannot Claim Any Rights In Live-In-Relationship Particularly When He Has A Living Spouse: Allahabad HC

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that a person reposing faith in Islam cannot claim any rights in the nature of a live-in-relationship, particularly when he has a living spouse.

The court rebuked an inter-faith couple's plea seeking validation of their live-in relationship, terming it virtually an attempt to legitimize an unlawful union.

The Division Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-1 pointed out that the man involved, a Muslim by faith, was already married and had offspring from his legal wedlock.

"The writ petition virtually seeks legitimization of live-in relationships between petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2. This relief is sought in a situation where petitioner No.2 belonging to a different religion is already married and has a minor child of five years of age. The religious tenets to which the petitioner No.2 belongs to, does not permit live-in-relationship during the subsisting marriage. The position may be different, if the two persons are unmarried and the parties being major choose to lead their lives in a way of their own," the Court noted. 

The Bench categorically stated that religious precepts followed by the petitioner, a Muslim, prohibit indulgence in a live-in relationship while being married to another woman. Asserting that constitutional protection cannot override established customs and practices, the Bench elucidated that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution cannot extend support to such relationships contrary to social and religious norms.

The Court observed, "A person reposing faith in Islam cannot claim any rights in the nature of a live-in-relationship, particularly when he has a living spouse. The constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indian would not lend an uncanalized support to such a right, once the usages and customs prohibit such a relationship between the two individuals of the above description."

Emphasizing the paramountcy of upholding the rights of the man's lawful wife and the welfare of their child, the Court dismissed the plea for continuation of the live-in relationship sought by the petitioners. It underlined the necessity of maintaining a balance between constitutional and social morality, warning that undermining social coherence could lead to the erosion of peace and tranquility in society.

The Court's order stemmed from a successive writ petition filed by the couple, seeking the quashing of an FIR filed against the man by the woman's family on April 24, 2024, and requesting protection for their lives and liberties. The couple claimed to have willingly entered into a live-in relationship. Initially, the Court took up the couple's first writ petition on April 25 but allowed its withdrawal as per the counsel's request, with the liberty to file a fresh one later.

The Petitioner-man alleged in both Writ Petitions that he had married a Muslim woman in 2020, with whom he has a daughter, and asserted that his first wife had consented to his live-in relationship due to her illness. However, the Court found discrepancies in the man's claims upon discovering that his first wife was currently residing with her in-laws in Mumbai, contradicting his statements.

The Division Bench remarked that the scenario might have been different had the Petitioners been unmarried and of legal age, choosing to lead their lives as they saw fit. In such a situation, constitutional morality could have superseded customary norms, providing protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

However, the Court reiterated that customs and usages hold legal validity under the Constitution and cannot be disregarded lightly. "The customs and usages are an equal source of law recognized by the Constitution as the law made by the competent Legislature. Once there is a recognition of the customs and usages as a valid law within the framework of our Constitution, even such laws become enforceable in an appropriate case. The marital behaviour of the citizens in our society is regulated under statutory laws and personal laws, therefore, the usages and customs, are bound to be attached equal significance and no less than the laws made by the Parliament or the State Legislature," it said. 

Consequently, the Court denied the relief sought by the Petitioners and directed the investigating officer to safely escort the Petitioner-woman to her parental home, with a report to be submitted to it confirming her handover to her parents. 

"Having denied the relief of mandamus as prayed for hereinabove, we direct the investigating officer to escort the petitioner No.1, Sneha Devi, safely to her parental home and submit a report to this Court of her being handed over to her parents," the Court ordered. 

Moreover, the Court expressed its intent to delve into the issue of concealing material facts by the Counsel, and scheduled for further examination on May 8, 2024, highlighting the potential abuse of legal processes. 

Cause Title: Sneha Devi And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Others

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi,Devendra Verma,Kajol,Tanupriya

Respondent: Advocate Suyash Kumar Pandey (AGA)

Click here to read/download the Order