The Allahabad High Court recently observed that permitting a minor to seek protection while in a live-in relationship with a major woman would amount to putting premium on an illegal activity and thus would not be in the interest of our society.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Rajendra Kumar-IV observed, "an accused who is below 18 years of age cannot seek protection on the ground of live in relationship with a major girl and thus cannot seek quashing of the criminal prosecution against him as his / her activity is not permissible in law and is thus illegal. In case, this is permitted, this would amount to putting premium on an illegal activity and thus would not be in the interest of our society and we are not inclined to put a seal of approval on such legally impermissible activities."

The Court also held that the activity of the live-in relationship in the present case is of extremely short duration which "cannot come in support of the case of the petitioners”.

Advocate Mohd. Monis appeared for the Petitioner and G.A. Amar Bahadur Maurya appeared for the Respondent.

The writ petition had been filed with the prayer to quash the First Information Report which was registered under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Further prayer had been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.The admitted case of the petitioners was that they were in a live-in relationship. The date of birth of the victim was January 01, 2004, and thus, she was a major and aged about 19 years, whereas the date of birth of petitioner no. 2 was March 15, 2006, and therefore, he was a minor and aged about 17 years.

The submission of counsel for the petitioners was that petitioner no. 1 was major and had left her house voluntarily; therefore, no offense under Section 363 IPC was made out. However, admittedly, the boy was minor. During the course of arguments, it transpired that the connected Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 525 of 2023 (Ali Abbas and others vs. State of U.P. and others) had been filed in respect of petitioner no. 2 - Ali Abbas, who was stated to be in the custody of the brother and other relatives of the victim, Saloni Yadav.

While the counsel for the informant submitted that the offense under Section 366 IPC was made out. Whether it was a case of abduction was yet to be investigated, and therefore, merely because the girl was major and was in a live-in relationship with a boy who was admittedly a minor, i.e. below 18 years, it could not be said that the offense under Section 366 IPC was not made out. He further submitted that the habeas corpus petition had been filed on false grounds.

The Court said that according to the definition provided in The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), a "child" is a person below the age of eighteen years, and the (POCSO) Act is gender-neutral, applying to both males and females below the age of eighteen. It is acknowledged that a child cannot engage in a live-in relationship, as it is considered immoral and illegal.

The Court cited the case of Lata Singh v. State of U.P., wherein the Supreme Court had held that a live-in relationship between consenting adults of different genders does not constitute an offence however the Court further remarked:

“an accused who is below 18 years of age cannot seek protection on the ground of live in relationship with a major girl and thus cannot seek quashing of the criminal prosecution against him as his / her activity is not permissible in law and is thus illegal. In case, this is permitted, this would amount to putting premium on an illegal activity and thus would not be in the interest of our society and we are not inclined to put a seal of approval on such legally impermissible activities.”

In view of the undisputed fact in respect of age of the petitioner no. 2 and categorical assertion that the petitioners were living in relationship the Court found that whether any offence under Section 366 IPC is made out or not was yet to be investigated.

“In any case, whether this act of ‘abduction’, which is covered under Section 366 IPC, by means of ‘any deceitful means induces’ and is result of inducement, is a matter of investigation and at this stage it cannot be said that no offence under Section 366 IPC is made out taking shelter of, as in the present case, on the ground of impermissible live in relationship."

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Saloni Yadav And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Click here to read/download the Order






Allahabad High CourtJustice Vivek Kumar BirlaJustice Rajendra Kumar-IVLive-in relationship

Suchita Shukla